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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description usefully adds the editor-role authorization requirement. It does not disclose side effects of toggling (whether disabling halts in-flight rule runs, whether enabling triggers immediate execution, or rate limits), which matters for a state-changing tool.

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 short sentences with the action stated first and the permission constraint second. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the permission requirement but says nothing about the effect of the change or the response. Adequate but with clear gaps given the operation's stateful nature.

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 67%: project_id and rule_id carry descriptions, but is_active is a bare boolean. "On or off" loosely maps to is_active, yet the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: turning a single automation rule on or off, which is more precise than the vague title. It is distinguishable from most siblings (e.g. dosai_set_function_active operates on functions, not rules), but it never names the closest analogue to make the boundary explicit.

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?

"Requires editor role" gives a real precondition for calling it, which is more than most siblings offer. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as dosai_list_rules or dosai_set_function_active, and it doesn't say a rule must already exist.

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