toggle_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that this is a POST mutation and that the schedule controls when Tdarr can process the library, but it does not disclose the response format, idempotency, or potential side effects beyond toggling the blocks.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action, the scope, and the domain context. It contains no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is adequate but not complete. It explains the effect on the processing schedule, but leaves out return behavior and validation details such as whether start must precede end or how type maps to schedule definitions.

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 every parameter has a description. The description adds helpful context by explaining that blocks are hourly and the range is contiguous, which clarifies start/end, but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 exactly what the tool does: turning a contiguous range of hour blocks in a library's weekly schedule on or off. This clearly distinguishes it from schedule-related siblings like update_schedule_block, which updates individual blocks rather than toggling a range.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to enable or disable a range of weekly schedule blocks. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over update_schedule_block or when not to use it.

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