toggle_graph_preference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation-without-destruction profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by stating the change is permanent until toggled again, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage examples and the persistence caveat, with zero filler. Slightly repetitive with the trailing parenthetical, but efficient overall.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers purpose, when to use it, valid ID sourcing, and the permanence of the change, while annotations handle the safety profile. It is complete enough to call correctly, missing only failure/confirmation behavior.

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 each of the three parameters already documented (including the admin-only user_email case). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (enable/disable) and a clearly scoped resource (knowledge graph, supplemental data source, or skill for the user), matching the tool name. It is easy to distinguish from read-oriented siblings like get_capabilities or list_graphs, though it does not explicitly name a confusable sibling to rule out.

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 gives concrete trigger phrases ("Turn off Paralogy", "Enable igloo") that map user intent directly to the call, and points to list_graphs as the source of valid IDs. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause or named alternative, but the context is clear.

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