set_engine_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the core behavior (enable/disable in settings.yml) and notes the settings_path default via SEARXNG_SETTINGS_PATH, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether changes persist across restarts, whether a restart/reload is required, or any permission/validation implications.

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 leads with a crisp one-sentence purpose and then provides a compact, well-organized Args block. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The parameter details are solid, and an output schema exists, reducing the need to describe return values. However, the tool is surrounded by enable_engine, disable_engine, and restart_searxng_container, yet the description does not clarify when to use this combined setter instead, nor whether a restart is required after modification. Given no annotations, this is a notable gap.

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%, but the description's Args section thoroughly explains each parameter: engine_name with concrete examples, enabled as a boolean toggle, and settings_path as optional with a default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb phrase ('Enable or disable') and clearly identifies the target resource ('a search engine in settings.yml'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools enable_engine and disable_engine, which likely have narrower, single-purpose behavior.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling enable_engine/disable_engine tools. There is no mention of preconditions, follow-up steps, or scenarios where this generic setter is preferred.

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