stage_receiver

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation that modifies receiver transport parameters and activation, but does not mention side effects (e.g., connection disruption), reversibility, permissions, error conditions, or rate limits.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient, but it is too short to provide necessary details for an advanced, low-level tool. It front-loads the 'Advanced:' qualifier but sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 (raw PATCH, nested object, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not cover prerequisites, effects on receiver state, error handling, or the return value (though output schema exists). More context is needed for safe invocation.

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%, yet the description does not explain the two parameters: receiver_id (string) or patch (object with additionalProperties). It says 'raw IS-05 staged PATCH body' but does not clarify the expected structure or constraints, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 sends a raw IS-05 staged PATCH body to a Receiver, with 'Advanced:' flagging its intended audience. It distinguishes from siblings like connect_sender_to_receiver by emphasizing 'full control' and raw operation, but does not explicitly name 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The label 'Advanced:' implies it is for low-level control, but there are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite instructions.

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