set_routine_enabled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful implementation trait — fetch-current-then-merge, so other schedule settings are preserved — which reassures the agent this is not a destructive overwrite. It says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or error behavior, which leaves meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, action first, behavioral caveat second. No filler, no redundancy; every clause carries information.

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 two-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and one behavioral nuance but omits permission requirements, failure modes, and what happens if the routine id is unknown. Adequate but not complete.

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 both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description's 'enable or disable' maps implicitly to the boolean 'enabled' parameter, but 'routine_id' format/identity is never addressed. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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?

States a specific verb pair (enable/disable) and resource (watering schedule), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling set_zone_enabled (zones vs schedules). It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource noun alone makes the scope unambiguous.

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 makes clear this is the toggle for a routine's active state, implying its usage context. However, it gives no guidance on prerequisites (e.g. the routine must already exist) or when an agent should prefer this over list_routines/set_zone_watering style alternatives.

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