metering__flag_meter

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description discloses scope (metadata only), prerequisite (admin token), and impact (default exclusion from stats). It does not mention reversibility or error handling, but provides sufficient behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single, front-loaded sentence with precise language. No wasted words; every part adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers core behavior, constraints, and side effects. Lacks mention of return value, error states, or idempotency, but given no output schema and 4 parameters, it provides adequate context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain individual parameters. It implies meter_id and admin_token but does not describe note or is_test beyond basic types. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (flag/unflag), resource (meter), and effect (exclude events from usage statistics). It distinguishes from other metering tools like create_meter or record_usage by specifying it only touches meter metadata.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly mentions admin-only requirement (VIRIDIS_ADMIN_TOKEN) and what it does not affect (events, hash chain, billing), helping decide when to use. However, lacks explicit alternatives for other scenarios like excluding specific events.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.