set_action_graph_enabled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the dual preview/set behavior and mentions that the tool reads back effective state, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether preview avoids side effects, what 'effective state' means, or what happens with command_id/idempotency_key.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence communicates the core operation and the readback behavior with no filler. Every phrase contributes value.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description still leaves significant gaps: preview semantics, side effects, idempotency_key, and command_id behavior are absent. With no annotations and 0% schema parameter coverage, this is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 description must compensate. It vaguely covers graph_path ('one Action Graph'), enabled ('enable/disable'), and preview ('Preview'), but command_id and idempotency_key are entirely unexplained. An agent would not know their purpose or format from this description.

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 operation — preview or enable/disable one Action Graph — and identifies the resource ('one Action Graph'). It also distinguishes this tool from family members like get_action_graph_status or evaluate_action_graph by emphasizing the enable/disable semantics.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_action_graph_status, evaluate_action_graph, or edit_action_graph. There is no mention of when previewing is preferable to enabling/disabling, nor when this tool should be avoided.

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