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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating but idempotent and non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations by stating that disabled exclusions are not evaluated during signal agent processing. It could further explain reversal effects or whether disabling affects existing agent runs, but the provided detail is valuable.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the primary action comes first, followed by the behavioral consequence and then the practical lookup instructions. Each sentence adds necessary information without wordiness or redundant schema repetition.

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 simple toggle tool with three parameters, this description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly: the action, the runtime effect, and how to find the required exclusionId. The workspaceId parameter is already documented in the schema, so no additional explanation is needed.

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 descriptions cover enabled and workspaceId, but exclusionId lacks a schema description. The description compensates by directing the agent to 'Use campaignstack_get_exclusions to find exclusionId values.' It also reinforces the enabled parameter's meaning by explaining the consequence of disabling an exclusion.

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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Enable or disable a signal exclusion entry.' It identifies the resource and adds a specific behavioral detail: 'Disabled exclusions are not evaluated during signal agent processing.' While this distinguishes the operation from many siblings, it does not explicitly contrast it with closely related tools like set_agent_exclusions or update_filter_exclusion_rules.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool by defining what disabling an exclusion does. It also provides lookup guidance: 'Use campaignstack_get_exclusions to find exclusionId values' and 'Use campaignstack_list_signal_agents to find signal agents for context.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools.

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