Set environment administration mode

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

The description explicitly states that it mutates a live environment and requires 'confirm: true' (a dry run otherwise), which is critical behavioral information. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately discloses the mutating nature and the confirm requirement. It also mentions it runs a specific command, providing transparency about the underlying operation.

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?

The description is reasonably concise, using two sentences to convey the core purpose and the critical confirm requirement. The key behavioral note about mutation is front-loaded in the first sentencecars. However, there's slight redundancy when it says 'Changes a live environment: requires confirm: true' and then repeats 'Mutates a live environment: requires confirm: true'. This repetition wastes a bit of space.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (10 parameters, 2 required) and the rich schema descriptions, the description provides the essential behavioral context (mutation and confirm requirement). However, it doesn't elaborate on return values or error scenarios, and with no output schema, the agent might not know what to expect. The description also doesn't fully explain the 'backgroundOperations' parameter's semantics, relying on the schema.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add much beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like 'runtimeState' and 'backgroundOperations', but it does emphasize the 'confirm' parameter's significance. The description doesn't explain the relationship between 'async', 'background', and 'maxAsyncWaitTime' in more detail than 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 tool's purpose: to put an environment into administration mode or back, and to control background operations. It mentions the underlying command ('pac admin set-runtime-state'), which helps distinguish it from other admin tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool for comparison, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

The description explains that it changes a live environment and requires 'confirm: true' to avoid a dry run, which gives important usage context. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cs_admin_environment_status or cs_set_flow_state. The mention of the 'active pac auth profile' implies usage context but doesn't explicitly state exclusions.

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