toggle_step

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, but it only states the binary toggle. It fails to mention side effects, whether the step must already exist, idempotency, permission requirements, or the outcome of toggling a nonexistent step. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and clearly identifies the resource. While it could contain more detail, the existing structure is efficient and contains no filler.

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 tool is a mutation with 3 parameters and no annotations. The description is too terse to provide enough operational context. It fails to clarify how environment is used, when to use this over update_step, or what happens after toggling. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing usage and parameter context.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), and the description does not explain step_id, enabled, or environment. The phrase 'enable or disable' clarifies the 'enabled' boolean, but step_id and especially environment semantics are left undefined, forcing the agent to infer from the parameter name only.

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) and the resource (existing SDK message processing step). The word 'existing' distinguishes it from step creation tools, and the binary toggle action effectively differentiates it from create/update/delete step tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_step. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., listing steps to obtain step_id) or how the environment parameter affects selection. 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.