st.mvu.entry.set_enabled

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral context. It only discloses the confirm:true requirement and does not explain side effects, whether the operation is reversible, what happens to the entry, or how snapshotLabel is involved.

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 short, direct sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical confirm requirement is stated immediately after.

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 tool with six parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description is too sparse. It does not identify the entry sufficiently, explain the book parameter, or describe return behavior, leaving important gaps for correct invocation.

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 the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It clarifies that confirm must be true and that 'enabled' corresponds to the enable/disable action, but leaves uid, book, comment, and snapshotLabel unexplained. Agents still lack meaning for most parameters.

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 names a specific action—'Enable or disable'—and a clear resource: 'one MVU-related worldbook entry.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like st.extension.set_enabled and st.worldbook.entry.configure because it targets the MVU worldbook entry's enabled state.

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 verb implies this should be used when toggling the enabled flag on an MVU worldbook entry, and the confirm requirement adds a clear prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over st.worldbook.entry.configure or other sibling tools, so routing is left mostly to inference.

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