opnsense_nat_source_toggle

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool is destructive and requires confirmation, but does not explain the exact toggle mechanism (e.g., inverting an enable flag) or whether changes require a subsequent apply (sibling opnsense_nat_apply exists).

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: first states function, second warns of destructiveness. The purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple toggle with two parameters, the description covers the essentials. However, it omits that the change may not take effect until the apply tool (opnsense_nat_apply) is called, which is relevant context for the agent.

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 description must compensate. It reinforces the purpose of the confirm parameter ('requires explicit confirmation') and links uuid to the rule, but does not describe the uuid format or confirm's required value (already in schema).

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 ('Toggle') and the resource ('a Source NAT rule's enabled state'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like opnsense_nat_source_add (creates) and opnsense_nat_source_delete (removes).

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 implies that this tool is used to change the enabled state and warns of destructiveness, but it does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., opnsense_nat_source_update for other modifications) or mention any preconditions.

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