Toggle extra settings

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the non-annotation detail that a privileged scope (services:manage) and a full-access key are required. It still doesn't say what the toggle actually disrupts (e.g., whether the VPS restarts or connections drop).

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 very short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The permission clause runs onto the preceding sentence without a separator, a minor readability flaw.

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?

No output schema exists, and the schema plus annotations cover parameters and the safety profile, so the description is close to sufficient. It omits the operational consequence of toggling (service restart, connectivity impact), which matters for a destructive-setting tool.

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 schema already documents name, value, and orderNo. The description only repeats the enum values for 'name' (ppp, fuse, tuntap, nfs) and adds nothing about the boolean semantics or the order-number format.

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 (toggle) and resource (extra VPS settings) and enumerates the four togglable settings, so the agent knows the scope precisely. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling toggle_ipv6, which is the one plausible confusion source.

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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite — requires services:manage and a full-access API key — which tells the agent whether it can even call the tool. It gives no when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives for related network toggles.

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