Enable or disable an OnOff Feature (write)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it flags WRITE, discloses idempotency ('the value is absolute, so repeating the call is harmless'), and explains the business semantics that IsEnabled (not IsIncluded) is what the application must enforce. It omits auth/permission requirements and failure modes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with 'WRITE.' followed by purpose, then alternatives, then behavioral notes. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical gloss of 'OnOff Feature' is mildly redundant but the overall structure is efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the crucial decision inputs: which feature types it applies to, what the alternatives are, idempotency, and the quote-first precondition. Return values are not needed without an output schema; only permission/auth context is missing.

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%, so every parameter (including date_stamp, feature_ref, customer_ref, subscription_id) is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the meaning of is_enabled as an absolute switch but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; the baseline of 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 (enables/disables) applied to a specific resource (an OnOff Feature in a customer's active subscription). It explicitly separates itself from the two sibling write tools (push_usage_increment for metered, push_usage_quantity for Limitation), so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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 an explicit constraint ('OnOff Features only'), names the alternative tools and the feature types that select them, and adds a prerequisite ('Quote it first with quote_usage_change when enabling is billable'). When-to-use, alternatives, and a precondition are all present.

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