toggle_rule

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavioral consequence (inclusion in forward_test_rules) and makes the mutation explicit with 'activate or deactivate.' It doesn't mention reversibility or auth, but for a simple toggle, the key side effect is covered.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the main action and then adds a valuable side-effect note, earning every word.

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 operation with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains the primary action and a key behavioral consequence, and nothing else is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (rule_id as Rule UUID, is_active as True/False, portfolio_id as Portfolio UUID). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Activate or deactivate a systematic trading rule.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_rule, delete_rule, or update_rule, which perform different operations on rules.

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 provides context on when this tool matters: 'Only active rules are included in forward_test_rules by default.' This implies toggling affects forward testing, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Still, it offers useful usage context.

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