toggle_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is reversible, that it performs a read-before-write to record an undo, that it is staged (not immediately live), and that dry_run is available for preview. It declares medium risk. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a write tool with zero annotation support. It doesn't detail auth requirements, but for a firewall rule toggle these are adequate.

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 tightly structured with a one-line summary up front, followed by clearly labeled Args. Every sentence carries information: reversibility, undo behavior, staging, dry_run support, and parameter meanings. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

Given 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does substantial work. It covers all parameters, the undo/staging workflow, and platform differences. It doesn't describe return values or error cases, but with no output schema and a reversible toggle operation, this is a minor gap rather than critical.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains uuid (rule uuid for OPNsense, id for pfSense, sourced from list_rules), enable semantics (true=enable, false=disable), dry_run behavior (preview without changing), and target (firewall name from config, default when omitted). All four parameters are given meaning beyond bare names and types.

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 clearly states 'Enable/disable a filter rule; reversible' with a specific verb+resource (toggle/enable-disable + filter rule). The [WRITE] tag and risk level distinguish it functionally from the many read-only sibling tools like list_rules, rule_detail, rule_stats. The stated behavior of being reversible distinguishes it from destructive write tools like kill_states.

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 description explicitly explains the workflow: reads the rule first for undo recording, is staged only requiring apply_changes to go live, and dry_run=True for preview. It also explains target (firewall name from config, omit for default) and uuid semantics differ per platform (OPNsense vs pfSense). This gives clear when/how guidance including the apply_changes dependency.

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