neuron_schedule_toggle

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the core effect (enable/disable) and what it does not do (remove), but does not disclose idempotency, side effects on running schedules, permission requirements, or return behavior. Some useful transparency, but not comprehensive.

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 efficiently conveys the core operation and the key non-goal. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter boolean mutation with a fully documented schema. The description captures the essential operation and a critical non-destructive guarantee. While it omits nuance like response format, the low complexity and full schema coverage make the current description sufficient for safe invocation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 (enable/disable), a resource (schedule), and adds the clarifying scope 'without removing it'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling neuron_schedule_remove and makes its function immediately apparent.

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 phrase 'without removing it' implicitly contrasts with removal tools, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or conditions for when to use this tool over alternatives. The intended usage is inferable but not directed.

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