Enable or disable Scaleway Audit Trail custom alert rules

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

Beyond annotations (idempotent, not read-only, not destructive), the description reveals that it only modifies listed rules, requires more than AuditTrailReadOnly, and includes a critical caveat that the API currently returns a 501 error despite documentation. This adds substantial behavioral context not available from annotations alone.

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 well-structured with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by differentiation, prerequisites, permissions, and a caveat. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the caveat paragraph is lengthy. It is slightly verbose but justified by the nuanced context.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and a currently non-functional API, the description covers behavior, side effects, permissions, failure handling, and provides a fallback alternative. It is remarkably complete for the agent to make informed decisions.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (region, enabled, rule_ids). The tool description reinforces the behavior but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. Given high coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Enable or disable specific custom alert rules by ID') and differentiates itself from the sibling tool 'scaleway_audit_replace_enabled_custom_alert_rules' by emphasizing that it touches only the listed rules, leaving others unchanged.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for toggling specific rules), when to use the alternative (to rewrite the whole set), how to obtain rule IDs, required permissions, and how to handle permission errors. It also warns about the current API unavailability and advises against retrying on HTTP 501, directing to a working alternative.

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