set_element_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that disabling does not remove the element and that disabled elements are skipped by JMeter at run time. While it does not detail persistence or reversibility, these are reasonably implied by 'enable or disable', and the essential runtime behavior is disclosed.

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 short sentences deliver the core action, the non-destructive nature, and the runtime behavior with no filler. Every word adds value and the most important distinction ('without removing it') 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 three-parameter toggle, the description covers the primary behavior and runtime effect, but the 0% schema coverage leaves the identification of planId and nodeId entirely to naming conventions. The lack of annotations and absence of an output schema also means the description alone must answer all usage questions, and it does so adequately but not exhaustively.

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 for undocumented parameters. It provides semantic context for the 'enabled' parameter by explaining what a disabled element does at runtime, but it does not explain 'planId' or 'nodeId' beyond their self-evident names, leaving required parameters only partially clarified.

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') with a clear resource ('an element') and explicitly contrasts with removal, which differentiates it from sibling tools like remove_element. It also adds the JMeter-specific consequence, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'without removing it' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the element should remain in the test plan but be skipped at runtime. It does not explicitly name alternatives like remove_element, but the implied usage boundary is clear and easily actionable.

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