fluig_dataset_enable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it flags ⚠️ ESCRITA up front, explains the route is a named action with the id in the path and no body, and clarifies the semantics of the flag it flips. It omits permission/auth requirements and reversibility implications of toggling a dataset off.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the write warning and the core action, then the routing note, then the disambiguation. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is filler.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the safety warning, the routing model, and the flag semantics that the schema cannot. The main gap is that it references `active=true` while the actual parameter is `ativo`, a small naming mismatch an agent must reconcile itself.

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 100%, so the rich per-parameter docs (env, ativo, confirm, datasetId) already carry the meaning and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the routing detail that the id goes in the PATH with no body; it adds nothing about `confirm` or the env enum.

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 pair (ativar/desativar) and the exact resource (um dataset), and explicitly rules out the closely related scheduling flag (`serverOffline`). What it does not do is name or differentiate from a plausible sibling such as `fluig_dataset_state_set`, so the agent still infers that distinction on its own.

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?

Gives a clear usage context – this toggles the `active` flag, not scheduling – and warns that an active dataset without `serverOffline` still won't synchronize. It offers no explicit 'use tool X instead when…' routing to an alternative sibling, so alternative selection is only implied.

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