set_schedule_active

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states it modifies the active flag and returns an empty dict, which is minimal disclosure. However, it does not explicitly confirm it is a destructive/write operation, nor does it discuss permissions, reversibility, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

The description is extremely concise with no extraneous content. It uses a clear docstring format (Args/Returns) that is front-loaded and easy to parse. Every sentence 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?

For a simple toggle operation with three straightforward parameters and a trivial output (empty dict), the description covers the essentials. It explains each parameter and the return value. It lacks error conditions or constraints, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, but the description provides brief parameter explanations: 'ID of the project', 'ID of the schedule to update', 'Whether the schedule should be active'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's types and titles, though it is still somewhat terse.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Enable or disable a schedule.' It uses a specific verb (enable/disable) and resource (schedule), and the name matches. Among siblings like get_schedule, list_schedules, and update_schedule, it is distinct and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_schedule, create_schedule) or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent is left without decision support.

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