toggle_monitoring

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

The description directly contradicts the idempotentHint annotation. The verb 'toggle' implies flipping a state, which is inherently non-idempotent (calling twice returns to original), while the annotation marks the operation as idempotent. No effects are disclosed.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a short prerequisite. Every word earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the contradiction between the description and the idempotent annotation, and the lack of any explanation about what 'monitoring' means or what happens after toggling, the description is seriously incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no parameter guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and the description omitting any mention of the server_id parameter, the agent receives no explanation of the parameter's role, the default null, or the effect of omitting it. The parameter name is self-explanatory but the description adds no value.

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 action ('Toggle') and the specific resource ('Wisp server monitoring'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like toggle_support_access. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires server-settings access') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion scenarios. Usage is implied but not explicitly directed.

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