toggle_error

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'toggle error boundary state for testing'. It lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if it affects UI or logs), rate limits, or what 'toggling' entails beyond the parameters. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like what 'toggling' does behaviorally, error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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%, so parameters 'id' and 'isErrored' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the tool toggles based on these inputs, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('toggle') and resource ('error boundary state'), and specifies the context ('for testing'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_errors_and_warnings' or 'get_errors_and_warnings', but the action is specific enough to understand its distinct function.

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 minimal guidance with 'for testing', implying it's used in test scenarios, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'clear_errors_and_warnings'), or prerequisites. This leaves usage context vague.

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