sassy_tool_group_toggle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect (emits tools/list_changed) and the critical client behavior caveat (some require restart). It also clarifies the meaning of enable (load) and disable (unload), going beyond the bare schema.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a side-effect note, a client caveat, and a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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, and the description covers the purpose, side effects, client impact, and parameters. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. The description is complete for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by listing the acceptable values for 'group' and explaining the boolean 'enable' as 'True to load, False to unload'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 action ('Enable or disable a tool group') with a specific verb and resource, and it explicitly lists the valid groups. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'sassy_tool_groups' and other setup tools, which serve different purposes.

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 clear context on usage, including the fact that it emits a tools/list_changed notification and how different clients handle it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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