Enable/disable alias

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint; the description goes beyond them by explaining the actual effect of disabling (silent mail blocking with no data loss) and by stating the return value. The idempotency sentence largely restates idempotentHint=true, and no permission/auth requirements are mentioned, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then idempotency, then return. No filler or restated title, and every sentence carries distinct 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 toggle with no output schema, the description covers the action, the boolean mapping, the side effect of disabling, idempotency, and the returned value. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are already documented, including the boolean meaning. The description's 'Pass enabled=true to enable or enabled=false to disable' duplicates the schema's own 'Desired state' text and adds no new syntax or edge-case guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set a SimpleLogin alias to a specific enabled state') and the exact control it exposes (enable vs disable). It also draws a boundary against the delete sibling by noting the alias is blocked 'without being deleted', so an agent can separate it from alias_delete/alias_update without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear conditions for use by spelling out the true/false semantics and the consequence of a disabled state, which is enough to choose it over alias_delete. It never names an alternative tool or states an explicit 'use X instead' exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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