Enable or disable a rule by providing its name and a boolean value. Use true to activate or false to deactivate, controlling workflow automation behavior.
Activar o desactivar una regla.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Nombre de la regla | |
| enabled | Yes | true para activar, false para desactivar |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.15Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the core toggle action. It does not mention persistence, idempotence, required permissions, side effects, or what the tool returns after toggling.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it is minimal enough that it could arguably carry more context.
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 simple, with only two fully documented parameters and no nested objects, so the schema covers the invocation essentials. However, the absence of annotations and any note about return values or choice vs. df_rule_update leaves the description only minimally viable.
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%: both `name` and `enabled` are already documented. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the rule is activated or deactivated, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Activar o desactivar') and the resource ('una regla'), so an agent understands this toggles a rule's enabled state. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling df_rule_update, which could also change the enabled field.
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 usage context is provided: the description does not explain when to prefer df_rule_toggle over df_rule_update or any other sibling. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.