set_alert_rule_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait that alerts and the rule are preserved. However, it says nothing about permissions required, whether paused rules re-evaluate existing alerts on resume, or what the call returns, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded single-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block; every line earns its place given the empty schema descriptions. The Args formatting is slightly verbose but justified by 0% schema coverage.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both parameters and the non-destructive behavior. It omits permission/auth requirements and return behavior, minor gaps but the essential calling information is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: rule_id is tied to list_alert_rules (telling the agent how to obtain a valid id) and enabled is annotated with the semantic mapping True=resume matching, False=pause. This goes meaningfully beyond the bare boolean/integer types in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('turn on or off') and resource ('an alert rule') and immediately distinguishes the operation's non-destructive nature from sibling delete_alert_rule. An agent can tell it apart from add_alert_rule/delete_alert_rule without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly frames the use case as toggling state without deleting the rule or its alerts, which contrasts with delete_alert_rule. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool or stating when a pause is preferable to deletion beyond the implied 'keep alerts intact' condition.

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