goclaw_cron_toggle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Enable or disable') but fails to describe critical traits: whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not explicit), what permissions are required, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., affecting scheduled runs), or error conditions. For a tool that modifies system state, this omission is significant and reduces transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, achieving ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 tool's complexity (a state-changing operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error handling), usage context, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a tool that alters cron job states.

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%, with both parameters ('id' and 'enabled') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of 'id', implications of toggling). This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter meaning without requiring description supplementation.

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 ('a cron job'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'goclaw_cron_create', 'goclaw_cron_delete', and 'goclaw_cron_run' by focusing on toggling status rather than creation, deletion, or execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'goclaw_cron_update', which might also handle status changes, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing cron job ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'goclaw_cron_update' or 'goclaw_cron_list'. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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