Set source consent

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete quotas (at most 25 initial back-catalog items and 10 starts per UTC day), the side effect of disabling (releases unstarted reservations but does not cancel active captures), idempotent retry behavior returning a stored receipt, and the fact that the intent token must be minted in the dashboard and cannot be forged by an agent. This is exactly the destructive-write context an agent needs.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and the confirmation precondition, then sequencing, then limits and side effects. No filler and every clause carries operational information.

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 destructive, token-gated mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: prerequisites, the authorization path for the intent token, rate limits, retry idempotency and the return receipt, and the exact semantics of the disabling transition. Nothing an agent must know before calling is absent.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the revision-freshness precondition and the dashboard-minted intent constraint, but adds no new semantics for consent_state values or the conditional expected_cursor_revision rule beyond what the schema already 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?

States a specific verb pair (enable/disable) and a precise resource (standing capture for a registered source), plus the gating condition (after local confirmation). An agent can distinguish it from register_source, source_status, and the remove_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly sequences the tool after register_source and source_status, and names the alternatives (remove_podcast_feed, remove_monitored_playlist) with the condition that selects them — stopping monitoring entirely rather than toggling consent. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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