Quarantine or release an agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this mutates a live environment, that confirm:true is required to avoid a dry run, that it runs 'pac copilot quarantine' under the active auth profile, and the user-visible effect of quarantine. It omits return shape and any pagination/rate-limit notes, but covers the critical destructive-operation traits.

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?

Four tight sentences with the operation, semantics, and the confirm safety gate front-loaded. No filler, though sentence 3 (the underlying pac command) is arguably internal implementation detail rather than agent-facing guidance.

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?

For a destructive admin tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is solid: it covers the mutation effect, the confirm requirement, and the auth profile context. It could be more complete by naming the sibling alternative or hinting at the response, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description reinforces the confirm gate and the quarantine/release direction, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb pair (quarantine/release) and resource (agent), and explains what quarantine means behaviorally ("users cannot talk to it"). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar sibling cs_block_org_agent, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives useful context ("Admin operation", requires confirm:true or it is a dry run), which implies when the tool will actually take effect. However, it never names an alternative or states when to prefer this tool over cs_block_org_agent or cs_delete_agent, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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