Set token status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'update token status' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose what permissions are required, whether the change is reversible, what side effects might occur, or any rate limits. It mentions 'Admin' which hints at elevated privileges, but this is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with just three words. It's front-loaded with the most important information ('Admin') first. While perhaps too brief, every word serves a purpose with no wasted text.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what tokens are being updated, what the status changes mean, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. The context signals show this is a non-trivial tool that needs more complete documentation.

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 50% (only the 'status' parameter has a description with enum mapping). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline is 3 - the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'address' parameter but doesn't make things worse either.

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 'Admin: update token status' states the action (update) and resource (token status) but is vague about what 'token status' means. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'create' or 'transfer' but not from other admin tools. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what tokens or statuses are involved.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Admin' which implies administrative privileges, but doesn't specify prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be used for related tasks. No explicit when/when-not statements or alternatives are provided.

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