Enable or disable alias

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by explaining the consequence ('mail to it is rejected as if it never existed') and clarifying that the change is reversible ('or back on'). It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether the alias configuration is retained for re-enabling.

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 delivers the action, its effect, and a use case with no filler. The nested parenthetical with the spam example is slightly dense but each clause carries information.

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, non-destructive, idempotent toggle with no output schema, the description covers effect and reversibility, which is the essential gap the structured fields leave. Only minor gaps remain (permissions, alias-format handling) and those are low-stakes here.

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 50%: 'alias' is documented in the schema, while 'enabled' has no schema description. The description's on/off framing effectively conveys what the boolean toggles, but it adds nothing about accepted alias formats or the numeric-id alternative mentioned only in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Turn an alias off ... or back on') applied to a named resource, and the title confirms it. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_alias or list_aliases, though it never explicitly names them.

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?

It gives one clear use case ('use this to stop spam'), which implies when to reach for the tool. However, it names no alternatives and states no when-not conditions, so routing versus siblings such as create_alias is left to inference.

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