toggle_support_access

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

The description contradicts the annotations: 'Toggle' implies a non-idempotent state flip, but the annotation declares idempotentHint=true. It adds a permission requirement but fails to describe the actual behavioral effect (what enabling/disabling support access does) beyond what the minimal annotation set implies.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. Both sentences add value: the first states the action and target, and the second provides a prerequisite. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (mutation, destructive hint, one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'support access' means, what the effect of toggling is, or what the server_id parameter represents, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate correctly.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for parameter semantics, but it does not mention the single 'server_id' parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the null default and behavior are unexplained, leaving the agent uncertain about the target server scope.

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 uses the verb 'Toggle' with the resource 'provider support access,' which clearly indicates the action and target. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'toggle_monitoring' by specifying 'support access' rather than monitoring.

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 only provides a prerequisite ('Requires server-settings access') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, alternative tools, or specific scenarios where toggling support access is appropriate.

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