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

Adds real value beyond annotations: the effect is deferred ('from the next run onward') and state is preserved ('nothing else about it changes'). Annotations only declare non-readOnly/non-destructive; the temporal and reversibility detail comes from the description. No mention of auth or idempotency of repeat calls.

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, then the key behavior, then the id-discovery hint. Nothing redundant.

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 three-param mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the effect timing and state-preservation semantics that the structured fields lack. It does not say what is returned or whether the call is idempotent, a minor omission.

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 all three params are documented there, including the boolean semantics of enabled and the list_rules source for ruleId. The description adds only 'by id' and repeats the list_rules pointer, so baseline 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 pair and resource ('enable or disable one rule by id') and immediately scopes the effect ('nothing else about it changes'), which distinguishes it from delete_rule. An agent can pick it out from siblings without opening a 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?

Points to list_rules for id discovery and implicitly contrasts with destructive removal by saying nothing else changes. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of delete_rule when you want to keep the rule' sentence, so it is clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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