set_task_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal mechanism (toggling shards.disable and republishing), the behavioral consequences (stop/resume, no data loss), and the expected post-enable status delay (WARNING for 30-120s then OK). This is rich and transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence provides distinct operational detail. No wordiness or redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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 two-parameter boolean toggle with no output schema, the description fully covers the mechanism, operational impact, timing, and data-safety behavior. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters (task, enabled). The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Enable or disable a task by toggling shards.disable', a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the operational effect. This distinguishes it clearly from read-only siblings like task_status and task_health, and from restart_task.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: disabling stops processing, re-enabling resumes from the last checkpoint. It gives useful context for pause/resume scenarios, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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