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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds the nuance that it doesn't delete the rule, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the change is reversible, whether it affects deployed versions, or any side effects. With annotations covering the mutation profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste. The core action (enable/disable) and the key non-destructive distinction are both front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 operation with full schema coverage and annotations declaring destructive intent, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it doesn't explain why versionId is required or whether toggling affects a specific version vs. the live rule, which could matter for correct invocation. The output schema is absent, but for a toggle that's acceptable.

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 all four parameters (ruleId, groupId, isEnabled, versionId) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct 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?

The description 'Enable or disable a rule without deleting it' clearly states the verb (enable/disable), the resource (rule), and the key distinction from deletion. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the contrast with deletion helps differentiate it from lexq_rules_delete and lexq_rules_update.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to change a rule's active state without removing it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like lexq_rules_update for other modifications. The context is clear but exclusions are not stated.

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