set_criterion_enabled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully clarifies the non-destructive nature of the toggle (the criterion is preserved), but says nothing about permissions, whether the change takes effect immediately, or what is returned.

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?

Very short, front-loaded single sentence for purpose followed by compact arg notes. Nothing is padded, though the 'Args:' formatting is slightly more verbose than needed.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two parameters and the non-destructive behavior adequately for a simple toggle. It omits side effects on judging state, permissions, and failure behavior, leaving some gaps for an unannotated mutation.

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, and it does: it sources criterion_id ('id from list_criteria') and gives the operational meaning of each boolean value. This is meaningful added context beyond the bare schema types.

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/off) and resource (criterion), and the phrase 'without deleting it' distinguishes it from sibling delete_criterion. It does not explicitly name add_criterion or list_criteria as alternatives, but the action is unmistakable.

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 parameter note 'True to resume judging against it, False to pause' implies when to use each mode, which is a reasonable usage hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative for removing vs. pausing a criterion.

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