toggle_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well by explaining the persistent effect on karabiner.json: disabling adds 'enabled: false', enabling removes the flag. It does not cover error conditions or profile-specific behavior, but the core mutation semantics are transparent.

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 two crisp sentences with front-loaded action. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second provides essential behavioral detail about the JSON flag mechanics without redundancy.

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 description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior, and since an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. Minor gap: it does not mention how profile_index affects the toggle, but the schema covers that parameter, leaving only a small completeness gap.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 pair ('Enable or disable') and clearly identifies the target resource ('installed rule'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add_rule, remove_rule, and edit_rule by focusing on the enabled state mutation.

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 the tool is for toggling rule state, but it does not explicitly contrast with edit_rule or state when not to use it. Context is clear, but there are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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