Undo a boost

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

Annotations already convey the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to restate it. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 with no filler and the action is immediately clear. It earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no output schema, the description plus schema is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could have noted the inverse relationship to boost_status, but this is a minor gap.

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 fully documents the id and account parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Undo a boost' tells the agent it removes a boost from a status. It is not vague, though it repeats the title and does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling boost_status beyond the inverse phrasing.

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. The inverse relationship to boost_status is implied by 'Undo,' but the description never tells the agent when to select this over other status actions or what prerequisites apply.

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