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

Annotations only give destructiveHint=true; the description adds that this is a WRITE, that it is reversible, and that the rule object is retained rather than deleted — genuinely useful context beyond the annotation. There is a mild tension in that destructiveHint=true while the change is described as reversible and non-destructive, but the toggle can still disrupt traffic, so this reads as clarification rather than contradiction.

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?

Front-loads the WRITE marker, then the action, then the reversal guarantee, then the GUID source and endpoint in one tight block. The trailing API path is marginal value but harmless; nothing is padded.

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-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers mutation type, reversibility, and parameter sourcing, which is enough to invoke correctly. It does not say what the call returns or whether a subsequent read is needed to confirm state.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by documenting where edge_rule_id comes from (bunny_get_pull_zone EdgeRules[].Guid) — provenance the schema does not supply. It does not add anything for pull_zone_id beyond the schema.

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 (turn on/off) and resource (one edge rule on a pull zone), and immediately frames it as a write operation. No sibling tool touches edge rules, so the scope is unambiguous against the rest of the bunny_* 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?

It routes the agent to bunny_get_pull_zone as the source of the required GUID (EdgeRules[].Guid), which is real prerequisite guidance. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative path, so it stops short of a 5.

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