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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the core action (toggling enabled/disabled state). It does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens on success or failure. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool's name.

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 a single, direct sentence that immediately states the action and target. It is appropriately concise, with every word earning its place and no redundant content. The structure is optimal for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

As a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's effects, prerequisites, or return behavior. It does not explain what happens after toggling, whether the change is persistent, or any error conditions, making it inadequate for safe autonomous invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (tool_id and session_id), so the description does not need to explain them. However, it also adds no additional semantic information about parameter relationships or constraints, keeping it at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'toggle' and the resource 'a tool's enabled/disabled state', which precisely conveys the action and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_tool, update_tool, and delete_tool. The enabled/disabled aspect gives exact scope, leaving no ambiguity about what is being toggled.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Unlike the high-quality example that explicitly names an alternative tool, this description simply states the action without any contextual or exclusionary notes, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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