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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating mutation. The description adds valuable context by explaining that off rules 'stay saved but never run', clarifying the side effect of disabling. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 no filler. The core action and key consequence (off rules stay saved) are conveyed efficiently.

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 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential behavior. It tells the agent what the tool does and the consequence of turning a rule off, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% and both parameters are well-described in the schema (rule_id as the id, is_active as true=on/false=off). The description does not add further semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 clear action (turn on/off) and resource (automation rule), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like create_automation_rule, delete_automation_rule, list_automation_rules, and run_automation_rules. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates the tool's role in enabling/disabling rules, and the context of sibling tools makes it obvious when to use it (vs. creating, deleting, or running). However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it misses the top bar for explicit guidance.

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