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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope constraint that only the enabled state changes, but says nothing about the consequences of disabling a live rule, required permissions, or reversibility. Note a mild tension: 'without changing what it does' reads as low-impact while destructiveHint=true flags it as destructive, though these are not strictly contradictory (disabling a rule halts its behavior).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the differentiating constraint second; nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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, no-output-schema operation whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description is close to sufficient, but it leaves both parameters undocumented and does not mention the effect of turning a rule off. Adequate, with clear gaps.

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% for both parameters, and the description does not name automation_rule_id or explain that 'active' is the boolean target state. 'On or off' only loosely hints at the boolean parameter, leaving the identifier parameter entirely to the bare 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?

Specific verb (turn on/off) plus resource (automation rule), with the scoping clause 'without changing what it does' that separates it from update_automation_rule, delete_automation_rule, and get_details_of_a_single_automation_rule. An agent can route to it without opening a sibling schema.

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 'without changing what it does' implies that other modifications belong to update_automation_rule, but the alternative is never named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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