manage_tools

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which already tell the agent this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive tool. The description adds valuable context: '始终可用，不可被禁用' (always available, cannot be disabled), and details the actions like sync and reconnect, which imply connection state management. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a structured list of supported actions. No redundant or filler content. The behavioral note about being always available is brief and informative.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and actions concisely. It lacks detail on the 'migrate' action and does not explain return values, but these are mitigated by the rich schema and annotations. The tool's simplicity means the description is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by explaining the actions (e.g., 'sync（同步连接状态）' and 'reconnect（手动重连）'), but it omits the 'migrate' action that appears in the schema enum. This omission creates a minor gap in understanding the full parameter range.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '动态管理工具组的启用/停用状态' (dynamically manage enable/disable status of tool groups). It lists all supported actions, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that handle domain-specific tasks. The verb 'manage' and resource 'tool groups' are specific and unambiguous.

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 lists capabilities (list_groups, activate, etc.) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when-not' or alternative tools are mentioned. The intended usage is implied by the name and action list, but explicit guidance is missing.

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