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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered structurally. The description reinforces the non-destructive nature with 'without deleting it', but adds no permission, rate-limit, or state-transition detail beyond that.

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 short sentences, zero padding, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the id-sourcing tip.

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 trivial two-parameter toggle with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers action, non-destructiveness, and id provenance adequately. Only a note on what happens if the id is invalid would improve it.

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 the schema itself explains both `id` and the true/false meaning of `enabled`. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Turn a rule on or off') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the delete path with 'without deleting it', which separates it from delete_spotlight_rule and update_spotlight_rule in the sibling list.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite/entry point by naming list_spotlight_rules as the way to obtain the id. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over update_spotlight_rule, but the toggle-vs-edit distinction is implicit in the phrasing.

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