Turn the API on or off

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

The destructiveHint annotation is true, and the description goes well beyond it by disclosing that all API keys are disabled, including this server's own key, that the web UI is the only recovery path, and that a confirmation token is required.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical warnings and confirmation requirement are included in tight, high-value prose.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: global scope, irreversible-looking severity, recovery path, and the confirmation flow. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds consequential meaning to the enabled parameter by stating what disabling actually does: it disables every API key at once. It also surfaces the confirmation-token requirement.

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 and resource: 'Switches Wiki.js’ whole API on or off.' It clearly identifies the scope as global, distinguishing it from sibling tools like revoke_api_key that act on individual keys.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool, including the severe consequence that turning it off 'disables every API key at once' and that recovery requires the web administration UI. It does not name alternatives, but no close alternative exists among the siblings.

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