set_enabled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('enable or disable'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, side effects (e.g., stopping active automations), rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that likely alters system state.

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 extremely concise—just three words—with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's likely complexity (mutating automation state) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'automation' entails, how it interacts with siblings, or what the output schema returns. With an output schema present, return values might be documented elsewhere, but the description fails to provide enough context for safe and 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?

With only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add specific parameter details, but it implicitly clarifies the 'enabled' parameter's purpose (to toggle automation on/off). Since there are 0 parameters with descriptions in the schema, the baseline is 4, as the description provides minimal but sufficient context for the single boolean input.

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 'Enable or disable automation' states a clear verb ('enable/disable') and resource ('automation'), but it's vague about what specific automation is being controlled. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'activate_workspace' or other configuration tools, leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_enabled' (likely for checking status), 'activate_workspace', and various window/input tools, there's no indication of prerequisites, context (e.g., system-wide vs per-workspace), or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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