Unprotect Cube

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

Even though idempotentHint is already in annotations, the description adds concrete detail: 'unprotecting an already-unprotected Cube is a no-op server-side' and clarifies the exact consequence for delete_cube. This enriches the annotation-provided safety profile without contradicting it.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense: purpose, effect, idempotency, and inverse tool. No filler or repetition; the main action is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 tool with only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, side effects, idempotency, and the inverse operation. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke it correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%: both cubeId and spaceId have descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, so it provides no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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?

The first sentence uses a specific verb and resource ('Turn off termination protection for a Cube'), immediately stating the tool's function. It also names the inverse operation (protect_cube) and ties the purpose to the delete_cube workflow, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like protect_cube or delete_cube.

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 explicitly states the effect on delete_cube, which tells the agent when this tool is needed (before deleting a protected Cube). It also names the alternative for the reverse action ('To turn protection back on, call protect_cube'), leaving no ambiguity about usage context.

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