ts_set_project_enabled

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions toggling, but does not explain side effects (e.g., what happens to dependent data), authorization needs, or whether toggling is reversible.

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?

Extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose, then two lines for parameters. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core action. Efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 simple toggle with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input adequately. However, it does not mention the return value or confirmation of the toggle, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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. It does so by explicitly explaining each parameter: 'project_id' as unique ID and 'enabled' as True/False. This adds value beyond the schema's type-only definition, though it could include constraints like valid project_id ranges or consequences of invalid input.

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 tool toggles the enabled/active state of a specific project, using a specific verb ('Toggle') and resource ('project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ts_set_project_priority' and 'ts_toggle_target_enabled' by focusing on enable/disable rather than priority or target toggle.

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 vs alternatives, or any prerequisites or context. It simply states the action without indicating conditions, such as whether the project must exist or the impact of disabling.

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