Toggle Acl Rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it adds almost nothing. It implies a reversible state flip but says nothing about required permissions, whether the change takes effect immediately, persistence across reboots, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 phrase is economical and front-loaded, with no filler. However, its extreme brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined concision, so it lands at minimum viability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a no-annotation mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage, the definition omits everything an agent needs beyond the name: which rule is targeted, what the boolean does, and any safety or permission 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the two required parameters (rule_id, enable). The description's enable/disable wording loosely gestures at the 'enable' boolean but never identifies 'rule_id' or explains its format, so it does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 action and resource: enabling/disabling an ACL rule ('启用/禁用 ACL 规则'). An agent can immediately tell it flips state rather than creating or removing a rule, distinguishing it from add_acl_rule and delete_acl_rule. It does not, however, explicitly reference those siblings or explain how toggling relates to them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_acl_rule, delete_acl_rule, or toggle_app_protocol_rule, nor any prerequisite or context. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the boolean parameter.

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