Metis · Librarian — Set Knowledge Layer Enabled

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 that a disabled layer is skipped only in 'all'-layer searches, that documents are not deleted, and that explicit naming still reaches it. It omits persistence/lifecycle details (does the toggle stick across sessions) and error behavior for an unknown slug.

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 and its consequence are front-loaded in the first two sentences with no filler. The Args block is useful but slightly padded by hard-wrapped lines and a redundant restatement of 'enabled' semantics.

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 two-parameter toggle with an output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, non-destructiveness, and both arguments. The remaining gap is failure modes and whether the setting persists, neither of which is documented elsewhere.

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 0%, so the Args section is doing real work: it defines 'database' as a slug with two concrete examples and explains 'enabled' as include/exclude from searches. It doesn't note that 'enabled' is optional with a default of true, which the schema alone reveals.

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 ('Turn a knowledge background layer on or off for searching') and immediately explains the effect of the off state. Clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_knowledge_database or list_knowledge_databases.

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 trigger ('useful when a background is off-topic for the work at hand') and implicitly contrasts with deletion by noting the layer is not removed. It does not name an explicit alternative tool or state prerequisites, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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