toggle_folder_watch

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the core toggle action, but does not state side effects (e.g., interaction with the scanner, whether disabling affects ongoing or scheduled scans), persistence, permission requirements, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 that front-loads the action and includes the API endpoint for precision. Every element earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.

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?

The core action and all parameters are clearly specified and the schema is complete, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits expected return values, behavioral consequences, and any link to related tools like verify_folder_exists or the scanner workflow. Adequate for a simple toggle, but with real gaps.

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 100%, with each parameter (folder, status, library_id) already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to since the schema is complete.

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 states a specific verb ('Enable or disable') and a specific resource ('folder watching for one of a library's folders'), and clarifies the action beyond the tool name. It is distinguishable from sibling scan/list tools by object, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or state what it is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toggle_schedule, scan_library, or verify_folder_exists. No preconditions, exclusions, or workflow context are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when folder watching should be toggled.

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