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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: required permission, scoring/monthly-recording side effects, report hiding, and the irreversible data gap for disabled months. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure a mutation tool 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?

Three compact sentences: action/resource first, then side effects, then the key caveat. Every sentence carries relevant information and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter org-level mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies permission, side effects, reversibility, and the important limitation that disabled months cannot later be recovered. No return-value explanation is needed because no output schema exists.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both framework_key and enabled, including valid framework keys. The description only restates enabling/disabling at a high level and adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 action (enable/disable) and resource (compliance framework for the organisation), plus permission scope (security.manage). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling read/list/report tools such as list_security_compliance_frameworks or get_security_compliance_framework_report.

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 gives useful consequences for enabling and disabling, which implies when the tool is relevant, but it does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-not guidance. An agent gets context but not routing guidance versus sibling compliance tools.

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