Set Agent Status

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the core action, such as what 'deactivate' affects or any side effects. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it also doesn't supplement them.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable, though it sacrifices depth 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?

For a simple two-parameter toggle, the description is adequate but lacks guidance on distinguishing from similar sibling tools (e.g., lyzr_set_agent_lock, lyzr_update_agent) or on expected response behavior (no output schema). With good annotations and full schema coverage, it reaches a minimally viable completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described ('agent_id' and 'is_active'). The description adds minimal meaning by implying that setting is_active to true/false activates/deactivates, but this is already clear from the schema field description. It meets the baseline for well-covered params.

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 function with a specific verb ('Activate or deactivate') and resource ('an agent'), matching the title. It is distinguishable from siblings like lyzr_set_agent_lock and lyzr_update_agent by its action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lyzr_update_agent or lyzr_set_agent_lock. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and sibling list.

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