toggle_schedule

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive action. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the exact state transition performed. It does not contradict the annotations and discloses the primary behavioral effect beyond what the annotations express.

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 sentence conveys the action, resource, and target state with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, exactly as concise as it needs to be.

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 one-parameter toggle operation with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action and its object. Minor omissions like return value expectations or permission requirements are not critical given the simplicity, but the absence of any such detail keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

The only parameter is schedule_id, which the schema leaves entirely undocumented. The description refers to a 'scheduled job' and thereby implies schedule_id references that job, but it does not explicitly define the parameter or describe format/constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 identifies the verb ('Toggle') and resource ('a scheduled job') along with the state change ('active/inactive'). It is distinct enough from siblings like update_schedule by specifying this is a state toggle, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling tool.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would call this to flip a schedule between active and inactive. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of update_schedule, create_schedule, or delete_schedule, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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