SetAgentConsumption

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Enable or disable,' implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects on agents, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.

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 complexity (mutation operation with a nested parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'instance consumption' entails, how to structure the 'body' parameter, or what the tool returns, leaving critical gaps for effective use.

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 0% with one parameter ('body') that is a nested object with unspecified properties. The description adds no information about parameter semantics, such as what fields 'body' should contain (e.g., agent IDs, consumption state flags) or expected formats. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Enable or disable') and the target resource ('instance consumption for unlicensed agents'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'AssignInstanceLicense' or 'RemoveInstanceLicense' that also deal with licensing/consumption, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'AssignInstanceLicense' or 'RemoveInstanceLicense', which appear related based on sibling names. The description implies usage for managing consumption settings but offers no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios.

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