set_slap_enabled

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover those. It adds a meaningful behavioral detail: disabling also closes an active background window. This is beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a secondary side effect. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter boolean setter with idempotentHint and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the notable side effect. It could mention that the current status can be checked via get_slap_status, but that's a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains the meaning of the 'enabled' parameter implicitly: true enables feedback, false disables it. However, it doesn't explicitly map the boolean values to the behavior, leaving some inference required. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the single parameter's meaning is largely inferable from the tool name and description.

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's function: enable or disable feedback when the user asks. It also mentions a secondary behavior (closing an active background window when disabling). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on setting the enabled state, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling for checking status.

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 implies usage: use when the user wants to turn feedback on or off. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_slap_status for checking current state. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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