qui_toggle_alternative_speed_limits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it is a POST call without explaining the toggle's effect, side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The term 'toggle' implies a state flip but does not make the behavioral consequences explicit.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the endpoint and the argument structure without fluff.

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?

The tool has no annotations and a minimal schema, but an output schema exists. The description covers the calling convention but omits practical context such as when to use the toggle, what result to expect beyond the endpoint name, and whether the operation is destructive. Some gaps remain but it is not completely inadequate.

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?

The input schema is a generic free-form object with zero coverage, so the description's guidance on structuring arguments is valuable. It explains that path variables go directly in arguments, query values go in arguments.params, and the request body goes in arguments.body. However, it does not enumerate specific required parameters like instanceID or body fields.

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 identifies the operation as toggling alternative speed limits via a specific endpoint, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling qui_get_alternative_speed_limits, so it loses the distinction bonus.

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 description provides only technical invocation instructions (how to pass path variables, query params, and body) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_get_alternative_speed_limits. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when toggling is appropriate.

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