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

Annotations already declare that this is a mutation and mark it destructive, but the description adds useful behavioral context: disabling a rule does not delete it, and an off rule stays saved but never runs. It does not cover timing or permission requirements, but it meaningfully supplements the 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?

The description is two tight sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence carries useful information.

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 full schema coverage and annotations covering mutation behavior, the description is mostly complete. Minor omissions around effect timing or permissions keep it from being fully comprehensive.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that the operation toggles a rule on or off, but it adds no syntax or semantic 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: turning an automation rule on or off. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as run_automation_rules, list_automation_rules, delete_automation_rule, and create_automation_rule.

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 implies when to use the tool by describing the on/off effect, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over run_automation_rules or state prerequisites. Usage is clear enough but left mostly implicit.

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