Toggle App Protocol Rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says only that state is flipped; it does not state whether the change persists across reboots, whether it requires admin privileges, whether toggling is idempotent, or what happens if rule_id is invalid.

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 short phrase, front-loaded with the verb and resource and free of padding. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a mutation tool.

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 explained, but with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation the definition is not complete enough for a state-changing tool. Nothing tells the agent about permissions, side effects, or the need to resolve rule_id first.

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 schema supplies only bare types (integer rule_id, boolean enable). The description adds no meaning: it does not say that rule_id must reference an existing app-protocol rule nor clarify the semantics of the enable flag (enable vs disable).

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?

"启用/禁用应用协议控制" gives a specific verb pair (enable/disable) and a specific resource (application protocol control rule). It implicitly contrasts with the list/add/delete siblings in the same family, though it never names them, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus list_app_protocol_rules, add_app_protocol_rule, or delete_app_protocol_rule, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that the rule must already exist and that rule_id comes from the list tool). An agent must infer all routing decisions.

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