kadam_adv_toggle_autorule_slice_block

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false plus a title, so the description carries most of the burden — and it does: it discloses that the operation is a toggle (direction is decided by current state, not by a parameter), that the response reports the resulting state, and what real-world effect it does NOT have (bid parity with stopping purchase). It does not mention permissions or whether the effect is reversible, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two disambiguating facts (the update_extended_bids contrast, the read-first recommendation). No filler and nothing repeated from annotations or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by stating that the answer reports the resulting state, and it covers the critical semantic gap between this toggle and bid shutting-off. For a two-parameter mutation tool with high schema coverage, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the non-obvious alternating [sliceId, valueId, ...] format of pathIds and the minItems constraint. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource — excluding (or re-including) a slice from a campaign's bid autorules — and immediately distinguishes it from the two siblings an agent might confuse it with (kadam_adv_update_extended_bids action=off, which stops buying; kadam_adv_get_campaign_autorule_slices, which reads state). An agent can select this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: it says this does NOT stop buying the slice and names the alternative tool/action that does, and it tells the agent to call kadam_adv_get_campaign_autorule_slices first if a specific end state is required. Alternatives and preconditions are both covered.

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