set_schedule_enabled

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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint=true, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It clearly states this is a mutating operation, persists the change, returns success=false unless confirm=true, and is a no-op without confirmation. This does not contradict the idempotentHint since the enabled parameter sets an absolute boolean state.

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 compact and front-loads the most critical operational detail (confirm=true), followed by mutation behavior, return behavior, and alternatives. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall size is appropriate and readable.

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 simple boolean update with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavioral context: confirm guardrail, no-op behavior, success/failure indication, and sibling alternatives. It does not describe the full success response shape, but with no output schema this is not a blocking gap for tool selection and invocation.

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 documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the confirm default and no-op behavior. The description's Args section essentially repeats the schema rather than adding new parameter-level semantics, so it earns the baseline score.

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 a specific action (enable or pause) on a specific resource (a schedule), describes the mutating effect (flips and persists the enabled flag), and distinguishes itself from sibling create_interval_schedule and delete_schedule. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and what it is not for.

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?

It explicitly warns that confirm=true is required and that without it the call is a no-op, which is essential for correct invocation. It also names the sibling alternative tools for adding (create_interval_schedule) and removing (delete_schedule) schedules, giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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