toggle_integration

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes beyond: it discloses that disabling stops syncing (live behavior change), that the connection and scopes persist, that re-enabling resumes, and that repeats are safe. It also mentions the API key requirement, which is not in annotations. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with a clear one-sentence purpose, then explains behavioral changes, idempotency, and a prerequisite (list_integrations). Each sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. The structure is effective for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's effect.

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 complexity (two simple params, no output schema, annotations provide safety hints), the description is complete. It covers the behavioral impact (data flow stops), the non-destructive nature (credentials kept), idempotency (repeatable), auth requirement (API key), and a usage guideline (call list_integrations first). This is more than sufficient for an agent to use 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('true to enable, false to disable' and 'Integration ID'). The description adds context about the meaning of enabled (on/off) and the effect on data flow, but it doesn't add syntax or additional format constraints beyond what schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 first sentence clearly states the verb ('turn') and resource ('third-party integration') with the scope (on or off). It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying toggling behavior rather than just listing or doing something else. The description adds nuance about live behavior that separates it from related tools like toggle_automation.

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?

Explicitly advises calling list_integrations first to avoid toggling blind, and explains the behavioral difference between disable and disconnect, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. It also implies that this is not the tool for revoking credentials or permanent removal. This is clear guidance.

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