Enable or disable a toolset

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the tools-list-changed notification side effect, clarifies there is no Alza-side mutation, and explains the blast radius (affects which tools this MCP server exposes to the agent). This is exactly the context an agent needs before a non-read-only toggle.

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 tight sentences with the operation and scope front-loaded, followed by prerequisite and side-effect notes. No filler and nothing repeated from the title 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the two things an agent must know: the prerequisite lookup and the notification/side-effect behavior. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter toggle.

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%, including the enum values and the 'all' sentinel, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description echoes the 'all' option but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, matching the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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?

States a specific verb (enable/disable) and resource (every tool in a toolset, or all toolsets) with the exact scope of the operation. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling list_toolsets, which is only referenced as a prerequisite.

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?

Gives a clear usage motive (make only task-relevant tools visible) and an explicit prerequisite (call list_toolsets first to get valid ids). It does not spell out when *not* to use it or an alternative route, so it falls just short of the top band.

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