fofa_schedule_set_enabled

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious side effect: resuming recomputes a future due time, which explains the non-idempotent hint and matters for scheduling decisions. It does not say whether pause retains history or takes effect immediately.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and the behavioral caveat attached; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 toggle with an output schema, the essential behavior is covered, and return values need not be explained. Minor gaps remain around permissions and the effect of pausing on in-flight or historical runs.

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 carry the semantic load. It usefully explains that the `enabled` boolean means pause versus resume, but adds nothing about `schedule_id` (format, source, or where to obtain it), leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 action pair (pause/resume) on a specific resource (a schedule), which an agent can tell apart from schedule_delete or schedule_history. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, fofa_schedule_stop, so the pause-vs-stop boundary is left to inference.

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 pause/resume framing implies when to use it (temporarily disable rather than delete), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this over fofa_schedule_stop or fofa_schedule_update.

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