Enable or disable an OnOff Feature (write)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a WRITE operation, states idempotency ('repeating the call is harmless'), and clarifies the semantic distinction between IsEnabled and IsIncluded, which is critical for correct application behavior. These go beyond the schema and add valuable context, though it stops short of covering error conditions or authentication requirements.

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 front-loaded with the WRITE marker and purpose, then layers exclusions, idempotency, and enforcement nuances in a logical order. Each sentence conveys distinct information without redundancy, though it is somewhat dense with multiple clauses per sentence, keeping it from a 5.

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 output schema and moderate parameter complexity, the description covers the essential context: target feature type, absolute value semantics, prerequisite quoting, and the enforcement distinction. It does not discuss error scenarios or response format, but these are less critical for a write operation and the description otherwise provides a strong operational picture.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description does not add substantive parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the note about 'absolute' value and idempotency relates to the call as a whole rather than a specific parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the action (enable/disable), the resource (OnOff Feature), and the scope (active subscription of a customer). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by naming the exact alternatives for metered and Limitation features, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool is for.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'OnOff Features only' and names the alternatives (add_feature_consumption, set_feature_current_quantity) for other feature types. Also includes a prerequisite instruction to quote first with quote_usage_change when enabling is billable, making the usage context complete.

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