splithub_property_status

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 well: it explains billing impact, config file updates, cloud propagation delay, archived behavior keeping numbers, restored behavior, and the destructive deletion caused by removed. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before invoking a mutation tool.

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 dense but front-loaded: it opens with the core action and then explains each status. Every clause carries useful behavioral meaning, though the long parenthetical structure could be slightly easier to scan.

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 or output schema, the description is nearly complete on behavior and status semantics. The main remaining gap is the meaning and expected format of the property parameter, plus any permission or auth prerequisites.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the status enum values, including running by implication, but never explains what the property parameter expects (ID, slug, path, etc.), leaving one of two required parameters underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — pausing/resuming an analytics property — and names the statuses it controls. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like splithub_set_status or splithub_set_property_status.

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 status semantics imply when to use each mode and the config/cloud behavior gives useful context. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over similarly named siblings, so guidance remains inferred rather than direct.

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