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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: toggling preserves steps and run history, the action is reversible ('can be switched on again'), enabling has a precondition, and the response reports what is missing. It omits permission/auth requirements, but covers more than most mutation descriptions.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the state semantics. The 'like the switch on ecomdly' analogy is filler that doesn't earn its place, keeping it just below top marks.

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 toggle with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key agent questions: what changes, what is preserved, reversibility, and that the response reports missing prerequisites. Only auth/permission context is absent.

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 id, agent, and enabled are already documented in the schema; the description adds no parameter-level detail such as how to obtain the id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Switch an automation on or off') and immediately scopes it ('without touching its steps'), which cleanly separates it from automation_save (edits steps) and automation_run (executes). An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 precondition 'It goes on only when nothing is missing' gives context for when enabling will succeed, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-siblings guidance (e.g., use automation_enable rather than automation_save when only the state should change). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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