toggle_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains that enabling causes the subdomain to terminate at pntr and log all requests, and discloses the DNS prerequisite. However, it does not describe what happens when disabling capture or the impact on existing captured data, leaving minor gaps.

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 wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core action and provides essential context efficiently.

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 toggle tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and a key prerequisite. It lacks details on disabling behavior and potential rate limits, but overall is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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% and the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Both parameters (subdomain, enabled) are already well-described in the schema, so the description does not enhance semantic understanding.

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 tool enables or disables HTTP request capture for a subdomain and explains the effect. While it mentions list_requests as a related sibling, it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool versus other siblings like check_subdomain or delete_dns_record.

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 specifies when to use (to capture HTTP requests) and a critical prerequisite (no A/AAAA/CNAME records). However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use or list alternatives beyond mentioning list_requests for viewing.

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