Toggle chaos rule

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description's "omit enabled to flip" usefully explains why the call is not idempotent — a state-dependent toggle — which is real added context. It stops short of covering permissions, invalid-id behavior, or what state changes result.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the flip fallback second. Nothing to trim.

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 mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives the agent everything needed to call it correctly, including the tri-state behavior of the optional flag. Only error/failure handling on an unknown id is left unstated.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does the important work: enabled supplied means set explicitly, enabled omitted means flip the current value — semantics the bare boolean schema cannot convey. The id parameter is self-evident from the name.

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 pair (enable/disable) plus the resource (chaos rule) and the lookup key (by id), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby update_chaos_rule, but the toggle semantics differentiate it implicitly.

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?

"Omit enabled to flip" is genuine usage guidance for one call pattern and implies when the parameter is the right lever. However, there is no guidance on when to toggle versus use update_chaos_rule, nor any prerequisite or state context for choosing this tool.

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