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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the genuinely useful patch semantic ('only fields you pass are changed; omitted keys keep current values'), but says nothing about permissions, side effects on existing documents, or error behavior when the inbox or a field is invalid.

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 sentences, zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the merge/patch caveat follows immediately, so an agent can stop reading after the first clause if it only needs the purpose.

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, non-destructive mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose plus update semantics adequately. Minor gaps remain around post-update effects on already-extracted documents and error cases, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the nested fields_meta object already documents each boolean key, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes only a few illustrative field names and the true/false = enable/disable meaning, which is a marginal add over the schema's own 'Partial set of metadata fields' note.

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/disable), the exact resource (per-document output metadata fields) and the scope (an Airparser inbox), with concrete field examples. It is clearly distinct from schema-editing siblings like update_extraction_schema, though it doesn't name them.

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 is the tool for toggling output metadata on an existing inbox. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over siblings such as update_extraction_schema, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that the inbox must already exist).

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