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

With annotations declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds a meaningful behavioral rule: a single call must target one resource via one ID, not both. It still omits what disabling actually does at runtime (does the command stop responding? is it reversible?) and what permissions are needed.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the operation is front-loaded before the parameter constraint.

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 4-param toggle with annotations already covering safety/idempotency and no output schema, the description covers the essential ambiguity (which ID to pass). A sentence on the effect of disabling would make it fully complete, but nothing critical for calling it is missing.

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 25% (only app_id is documented). The description compensates for the key gap by explaining that exactly one of command_id or event_listener_id should be supplied, which the schema does not express. It does not clarify the semantics of 'enabled' or whether omitted IDs cause issues.

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+resource pair ('enables or disables a command or an event listener') and covers both target types. It is distinguishable from siblings like create_command, delete_command, and get_command, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 constraint 'Pass one of command_id or event_listener_id' gives a concrete invocation rule, which is useful since the schema doesn't encode the mutual exclusivity. However, there is no guidance on when to toggle vs. delete or recreate, and no prerequisites (permissions, app scope) are mentioned.

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