toggle_support_access

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description goes further by explaining the mechanism (each call flips the current state) and the resulting retry hazard. The required environment/permission gate (WISP_ALLOW_SERVER_SETTINGS) is also disclosed, which annotations do not cover. It stops short of saying what enabling support access actually grants or how to verify the resulting state.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its flipping semantics, then the retry warning and prerequisite. There is mild redundancy between 'opposite state' and 'flips the current setting', but the second sentence earns its place by adding the consequence.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the key risks an agent must know: non-idempotency, retry danger, and the permission requirement. A minor gap remains in not indicating how to inspect the current setting beforehand, but the essential calling information is present.

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 a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains server_id and its default from WISP_SERVER_ID. The description adds no additional meaning about how server_id affects the toggle, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('hosting-provider support access') and makes the toggling semantics explicit ('to its opposite state'). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'toggle_monitoring', which targets a different setting, and from state-reading siblings like 'server_details'.

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?

It gives a concrete operational instruction ('do not retry blindly') and states a prerequisite (WISP_ALLOW_SERVER_SETTINGS), which an agent needs before calling. It does not name an alternative for reading the current state first, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing, but the usage context is clear.

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