set_filter_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it enables or disables, which implies mutation but does not clarify side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens when the filter doesn't exist. The dry_run parameter suggests a preview mode, but this is not explained in the description.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is too brief to cover necessary details. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, which is acceptable only if the schema or annotations compensate—here they do not.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with no descriptions, the description is significantly incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error messages, or the effect of dry_run, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool reliably.

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 add meaning to parameters. It only mentions 'named filter' and 'source', failing to explain the 'dry_run' parameter (a boolean for testing) or that 'enabled' is the desired state. The parameter names themselves are clear, but the description adds no value beyond the schema titles.

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 or disable a named filter') and the resource ('on a source'), making the purpose easy to understand. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_source_filters (which lists but doesn't toggle) and set_scene_item_visibility (which controls scene items, not filters).

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 alternatives, such as using list_source_filters to discover filter names first. There is no mention of prerequisites, common scenarios, or conditions under which to avoid using this tool.

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