toggle_automation_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the mutation is a non-idempotent flip, that no body is accepted, that the updated rule is returned, and that the automations:manage permission is required. It omits error behavior for an unknown id and any concurrency/race caveats, which matter for a toggle.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first two sentences with zero waste, and the permission requirement is placed last where it belongs. The trailing 'PUT /api/v1/...' and 'Tags: Automations' lines are boilerplate that add little for an agent.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, the returned object, and the auth requirement, which is enough to call it correctly. The main remaining gap is failure behavior when the id does not resolve to a rule.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the id as an integer path parameter. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('flips the enabled flag of a rule') plus the return value, and implicitly separates itself from update_automation_rule by noting there is 'no way to set the state explicitly.' An agent can tell this apart from the generic update sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete usage condition: read the rule first if the current state matters, which points at get_automation_rule. It does not explicitly name update_automation_rule as the alternative when an explicit target state is wanted, leaving that routing to inference.

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