mock_rule_set_enabled

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core side effect—toggling a rule's enabled state without deleting it—but does not mention whether the rule must exist, whether the change persists, or how errors are handled. Basic behavior is disclosed, but deeper effects remain opaque.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the key action and the non-deletion guarantee. Every word earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter boolean setter, the description plus schema are nearly sufficient and an output schema exists. Missing usage guidance and behavioral details like persistence and error behavior prevent it from being fully self-contained.

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 coverage is only 33%, but the description partially compensates: 'enable or disable' maps to the enabled parameter and 'one rule' maps to rule_id. Host semantics are provided by the schema. This is helpful but still leaves rule_id undocumented beyond minimal inference.

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 and resource: 'Enable or disable' targets 'one rule' and adds 'without deleting it' to clarify non-destructive intent. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named sibling mock_set_enabled.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus mock_rule_write, mock_rule_remove, or mock_set_enabled. Context is left entirely to inference from the sibling tool names.

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