tinyurl_analytics_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so well: it names the HTTP method/path, states that it goes through a 'durable alias mutation barrier,' warns that it invalidates create receipts, and specifies the OAuth scope required. Missing only idempotency and reversibility/edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid alias, already-disabled state) to reach a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the operation stated first, then side effects, then auth. No filler; the mutation-barrier/receipt language is terse but earns its space as the only source of that behavioral fact.

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 3-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the side effects, auth scope, and endpoint that an agent otherwise could not infer. It stops short of describing the response shape or what an invalid/disabled alias returns, but the essentials are present.

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 67%, just under the threshold where the schema fully carries the load. The description restates the two required params but adds no meaning: 'enabled' is undocumented in both places (what does false do to existing data?), and the fixed 'domain' parameter is never acknowledged.

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) plus the exact resource (analytics collection on one TinyURL) and even the backing endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from the analytics siblings (report, raw logs, sharing) which are all read/share oriented.

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 phrase 'for one exact TinyURL' implies single-alias scope and implicitly rules out bulk usage, and the token permission line gives context on required auth. However, it never names an alternative or states when-not to call it (e.g., what to do for multiple aliases, or whether this affects reporting retroactively).

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