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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description usefully explains what the 'on' state actually does, but says nothing about the 'off' state, reversibility, or permissions required. It adds some semantic context without contradicting annotations.

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 that opens with the resource ('The event's «Tommo work» switch'). No waste, though the trailing clause is grammatically tangled enough to require re-reading.

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 3-param mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the core effect but omits what turning the switch off does and any permission or prerequisite context. Adequate but with visible 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 coverage is 67% (job and event documented in-schema; on undocumented). The description supplies the meaning of the 'on' boolean indirectly via 'a person who books it gets the named job's tommo', which maps the switch to its effect, but adds no syntax or value detail beyond the schema for the other params.

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 names a specific resource and operation (the event's «Tommo work» switch) and states the effect of turning it on. It distinguishes itself conceptually from the form cousin ('as a lead from a form does'), though it never names switch_tommo_work_on_a_form directly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no stated alternative. The phrase 'as a lead from a form does' gestures at the form equivalent's behavior but gives the agent no routing instruction between the two switch tools.

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