Set Jumbo Shopping List Active

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral context: it writes to the user's real Jumbo account and is scoped to list activation rather than item modification. It does not cover authentication needs or reversibility details, but it meaningfully supplements 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical write-scope caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague language.

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 simple boolean toggle with full schema coverage and annotations, the description provides enough to invoke correctly: it names the resource, states the effect, and clarifies the write scope. It omits secondary details such as authentication requirements or what happens to existing items when deactivated, but no output schema exists and the annotation covers safety.

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 boolean parameter is already documented as 'true to activate, false to deactivate.' The description mirrors the activate/deactivate meaning but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 phrase ('Activate or deactivate') and resource ('the user's Jumbo shopping list'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from item-level operations by saying it does not add or remove items. An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like jumbo_add_shopping_list_items and jumbo_remove_shopping_list_items.

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?

It clearly states the context (toggling list active state) and gives an exclusion ('does not add or remove items'), which implicitly routes the agent to the add/remove siblings for item changes. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a perfect routing instruction.

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