toggle_acl_rule

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

There are no annotations to provide safety or side-effect information, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'enable/disable ACL rule' and does not disclose whether the rule must exist, whether it is idempotent, or what happens if the rule is already in the desired state. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation without any behavioral context.

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?

The description is extremely concise—one short phrase—and gets straight to the point. It avoids unnecessary words, but it is so terse that it borders on under-specification. For a simple toggle operation, this level of brevity is mostly appropriate, earning a slight reduction for missing essential context.

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?

The tool has two simple parameters and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks behavioral details like error conditions or state transitions. For a straightforward toggle, the description is minimally viable but not complete enough to fully guide an agent without additional context.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate for two parameters (rule_id and enable). It only states the overall purpose and does not explain that 'enable' is a boolean controlling the action or that 'rule_id' identifies the rule. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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 states the action: enabling/disabling an ACL rule. It uses a specific verb ('toggle') and a specific resource ('ACL rule'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_acl_rule or add_acl_rule. Even though it's a short phrase, it precisely conveys the tool's function.

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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. However, the tool's purpose is self-evident: you use it when you need to enable or disable an existing ACL rule. It doesn't mention exclusions or compare with other toggle tools (e.g., toggle_vpn_server), but the action is simple enough that the implied usage might suffice.

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