Enable Controller

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

The description discloses only the core state change, not behavioral consequences such as whether disabling stops active stations, whether the setting persists, or whether special permissions are required. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does not meet it.

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 one short sentence with no redundancy and the main action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a single boolean parameter.

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?

Given the simple input schema and presence of an output schema, the basic call is adequately specified. However, because this is a state-changing controller operation with no annotations, the description leaves out important operational context about what disabling actually does, making the definition minimally adequate rather than complete.

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?

The input schema already covers the single parameter fully, describing enabled as 'True to enable, false to disable' (100% schema description coverage). The tool description restates this same concept without adding new meaning, so the baseline 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 uses a specific action verb ('enable'/'disable') applied to a named resource ('the controller'), making the tool's function immediately clear. No sibling tool duplicates this action, so an agent can distinguish enable_controller from get_controller_status, reboot_controller, and similar 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?

The intended use — toggling the controller's enabled state — is implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or what conditions should be checked first (e.g., current status, running stations). The guidance is inferable but not stated.

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