Enable or disable an action rule while preserving its matchers. Requires write permission to update rule status directly.
Enable or disable an action rule without touching its matchers (requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | Yes | True to enable, False to disable | |
| rule_id | Yes | Action rule ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by explicitly stating 'requires write permission' and by constraining the mutation to the status field only, clarifying that matchers are left unchanged.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Enable or disable') and immediately clarifies scope. No wasted words or redundant details.
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?
The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, scope, and permission requirement, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it. It does not mention the return value, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity and lack of an output schema.
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 rule_id and enabled receiving clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema fully documents the parameters.
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 or disable') and resource ('an action rule'), and clarifies the scope by adding 'without touching its matchers', which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool update_action_rule. This is a precise, unambiguous definition.
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 explanation implies when to use this tool: when you only need to toggle status while preserving matchers. It does not explicitly name an alternative like update_action_rule, but the 'without touching its matchers' phrase gives clear contextual guidance. It also notes the write-permission prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.