mhlb_set_subscription_enabled

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

The description explicitly warns that the write is UNVERIFIED and derived from a compiled API client, instructs the agent to inspect the dry-run preview before confirming. It also discloses the behavioral consequence of enabling (future lunches ordered and charged automatically). This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and adds critical safety context.

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 with no filler. The purpose is stated first, followed by the critical safety warning. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no output schema, but the description covers the safety-critical aspects (unverified, dry-run guidance) and the behavioral effect. It does not describe what the preview returns or any response format, but given the openWorldHint and simple boolean parameters, this is adequate. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, especially with the confirm safeguard in the schema.

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% and both parameters (confirm, enabled) are already described in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the real-world impact of enabled=true ('future lunches are ordered and charged automatically'), which is not in the schema, and it reinforces the confirm parameter's role via the dry-run instruction.

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 on or off') and resource ('recurring lunch subscriptions'), and explains the consequence of ON ('future lunches are ordered and charged automatically'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_subscriptions or get_subscription_settings.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need to toggle recurring subscriptions—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools such as mhlb_get_subscription_settings or mhlb_unsubscribe_order are not referenced, leaving the distinction to inference.

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