Toggle subscriber updates

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

The description discloses that the tool changes runtime state by starting or stopping a background task and that it emits resources/updated events. However, with no annotations, it omits important behavioral details such as whether repeated calls flip state, whether the task persists, and what happens with no subscribed resources.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the observable effect without filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core effect, but the toggle semantics are ambiguous: an agent cannot tell whether a call always starts, always stops, or flips the current state. It also leaves 'subscribed resource' and cross-call side effects unexplained, which matters for a state-changing tool with no annotations.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter meaning to add. The baseline of 4 applies because the parameter side is complete and requires no compensation.

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 names the action ('Start or stop'), the resource ('a background task'), and the effect ('emits resources/updated for every subscribed resource'). It is independently intelligible, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like toggle_simulated_logging.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, expected contexts, or what distinguishes this from toggle_simulated_logging or trigger_long_running_operation.

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