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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by explaining the off-state behavior: 'it runs nothing; what it had filed stays for a person to decide' reassures the agent that toggling off does not delete data. It stops short of describing what 'on' actually runs or any auth requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the consequence second; nothing is padded. The trailing clause 'for a person to decide' is slightly vague about what decision is needed, but the sentence still earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter toggle with annotations already covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description supplies the key missing piece (that disabling preserves filed data). It omits what the 'on' state activates and any permission context, but overall it is sufficient to invoke the tool confidently and no output schema exists to explain.

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 coverage is 50%: 'tommo' is documented as a slug, while the boolean 'on' has no description. The description only echoes the on/off notion already implied by the title and boolean type, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Switch') plus resource ('one tommo') and the on/off state, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like switch_every_tommo. The word 'one' scopes it to a single tommo, but the term 'tommo' itself is never explained, leaving the object slightly opaque.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'one tommo' hints this is the single-target counterpart to switch_every_tommo, but the description never names that alternative or states a condition for choosing between them. No prerequisites (permissions, who may toggle) are given.

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