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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the step is 'saved' and inbox-scoped; it does not say what happens if no post-processing exists or whether in-flight runs are affected. With annotations present this modest addition merits a 3.

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 well-formed sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and no filler.

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 idempotent toggle with full schema coverage and annotations carrying safety semantics, the description says enough to call it correctly. Only the missing failure-mode context keeps it from a 5.

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 (inbox_id, is_enabled) are already documented. The description merely restates the enable/disable and inbox framing without adding format or edge-case detail. 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?

States a specific verb pair ('enable or disable'), the exact resource ('the saved Airparser post-processing step'), and its scope ('for an inbox'). This is enough to distinguish it from save_postprocessing_code or get_postprocessing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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: an agent can infer this toggles an existing step rather than creating or editing one. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites (e.g. that post-processing must already be saved) or of when to prefer save_postprocessing_code instead.

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