set_node_enabled

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It mentions enabling or bypassing but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, authorization needs, or behavior on already-set states. Minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence of 13 words is very concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks parameter information, so it sacrifices completeness for brevity. Still, it efficiently states the purpose.

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 unexplained parameters, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without additional knowledge. It does not explain indices or the concept of bypassing. Output schema exists but is not shown to compensate.

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 has 4 required parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain any parameter, not even the meaning of track_index, item_index, or node_index. Only 'enabled' is self-evident from the name. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 the verb ('Enable or bypass') and resource ('color node') and specifies the API ('Graph API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_nodes or add_serial_node.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage (to enable or bypass a node) but lacks prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Siblings do not directly overlap but no guidance provided.

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