conduyt_update_lost_propagation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses flip timing, the per-minute resolver, lostReason propagation, reopen behavior, won-contact exemption, forward-only history, server-side enabledAt stamping, and the automation-silencing consequence of a terminal status.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the dense paragraph is information-rich with little waste. The nested parentheticals make it heavier than ideal, but every clause carries relevant behavioral detail for a high-stakes toggle.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It covers activation timing, history semantics, downstream automation impact, and a concrete pre-enable safety step.

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%, and the single boolean parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces the enabling behavior but adds little parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema states.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Turn LOST propagation on or off for this tenant'. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent lifecycle/status siblings like conduyt_update_master_statuses or conduyt_get_lifecycle_settings.

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?

It gives a clear operational prerequisite: read the nightly shadow report ('lost-propagation-shadow') before enabling. It also explains the off-state behavior via 'shadow report only', but does not explicitly name when-not conditions or alternative tools.

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