Enable Or Disable EMQX Rule

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

The description adds significant behavioral information beyond the annotations: it warns that disabling a rule 'silently stops whatever pipeline depends on it' and advises confirming the downstream system. This complements the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradicting them, providing actionable safety context.

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 extremely concise, containing only two sentences that deliver the core purpose and a critical warning. The '[DESTRUCTIVE]' prefix front-loads the risk, and every sentence earns its place without superfluous detail.

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 tool is simple (2 parameters, no nested objects), and the description covers the essential purpose and the key risk. An output schema is available to describe return values, so the description does not need to explain them. It lacks minor details like behavior on nonexistent rule, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a toggle action.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters already well-described in the schema (e.g., 'True to switch the rule on, False to switch it off'). The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Switch a rule on or off') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like emqx_list_rules and emqx_get_rule_metrics by focusing on enabling/disabling rather than listing or monitoring.

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 provides clear context about when to use the tool (to toggle a rule) and adds a critical caution about disabling rules affecting downstream pipelines. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the tool's role. A score of 4 reflects clear usage context without explicit when-not guidance.

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