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 only states the core action and does not disclose whether the toggle is reversible, idempotent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects on existing rules. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 only 2 parameters and an output schema, but the description fails to provide essential context such as the effect of setting enable to true/false, the scope of rule_id, or any operational implications. It is a minimal description that leaves gaps for an AI agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. While 'rule_id' and 'enable' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not explain how they relate to the toggling operation or the expected values.

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 uses a specific verb (启用/禁用) and resource (应用协议控制), clearly indicating an enable/disable action. However, it doesn't explicitly mention 'rule' and lacks differentiation from sibling toggle tools like toggle_acl_rule, though the resource context differs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_app_protocol_rules, add_app_protocol_rule, or delete_app_protocol_rule. The description simply states the action without context on prerequisites or relationships to other operations.

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