toggle_dnd

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, so the safety bar is largely carried for it. The description adds the notification scope but omits the key behavioral trait of a toggle: it flips the current state regardless of whether DND is on or off, so the resulting state is unknown without checking. It also doesn't say whether this affects already-delivered notifications.

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 short sentence with no filler and the key noun front-loaded after the verb. It is appropriately sized, though it is so terse that nothing beyond the headline is conveyed.

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 no-param, no-output-schema mutation this is close to sufficient, but the ambiguity against set_notification_paused and the missing note that the result state is indeterminate leave real gaps.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The description doesn't need to explain any inputs.

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 (toggle) and resource (Do Not Disturb mode for notifications), so the action is unambiguous. It doesn't differentiate from the nearby get_dnd_status or set_notification_paused siblings, which is the only reason it stops short of 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_dnd_status (to check state) or set_notification_paused (to set state explicitly). An agent must infer the relationship from sibling names alone.

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