ecamm_toggle

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

Annotations already declare the mutation and non-destructive profile, so the description's added value is the note that publish_preview actually takes the Preview Mode layout live (a real-world side effect) and the hedge that state is returned 'where Ecamm reports it'. However, it never addresses the central toggle hazard: there is no target on/off parameter, so calling twice flips back, and no guidance on confirming the resulting state.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the enum values immediately after; nothing is padded. The trailing clause about return state is vague enough to read as filler, which keeps it from a 5.

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 with no output schema, the definition covers the feature set and flags that state reporting is best-effort, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It would be complete with one line on toggle reversibility or how to verify the resulting state.

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% and the single parameter is a bare enum, so the description must carry the meaning — and it does, glossing publish_preview as taking the layout live and hide_ui as on-screen controls. The glosses are terse for pip, preview_mode, and live_demo, but every allowed value gets at least minimal semantic anchoring.

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 names a specific verb (toggle) and the exact resource set, then enumerates all five valid features, so an agent knows precisely the scope of the operation. It falls short of 5 because it never contrasts itself with neighboring setters such as ecamm_set_source_mode or ecamm_toggle_audio_filter, leaving the boundary implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the per-feature glosses tell the agent which value to pick for a given intent (e.g., publish_preview to take the layout live), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from the sibling set_* tools.

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