Enable/disable link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description usefully signals flip semantics ('between active and disabled'), which matters since toggling twice reverts state and no target-state parameter exists — but it omits permission requirements and confirmation of the resulting state.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler or redundancy.

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 state-flipping mutation with no output schema and no way to specify a desired end state, the description should clarify that the caller must know the current state (or that the response reports the new state). Annotations cover safety, but this operational detail is missing.

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 100% and the single linkId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source (list_scheduling_links). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3.

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 (toggle) and resource (scheduling link) plus the two resulting states (active/disabled). It's clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_scheduling_link or list_scheduling_links, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_scheduling_link for checking current state before toggling. The agent must infer that this is the write counterpart to the read siblings.

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