set_agentation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key conditional behavior: when on, viewer annotations are collected and can later be read. But it does not mention whether toggling off preserves or deletes existing feedback, what permissions are required, or whether enabling the toolbar affects the live page experience.

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 just two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the follow-up workflow is compactly appended. Every clause earns its place.

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 boolean toggle on a resource, the description conveys the main purpose and workflow. However, because there is no output schema, no annotations, and 0% param coverage, the missing id_or_slug semantics and lack of persistence/side-effect details make it only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must clarify both parameters. It only implicitly explains 'enabled' via 'When on'; it never defines what 'id_or_slug' refers to, leaving a required parameter ambiguous. This is a meaningful gap for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Toggle') and a specific resource ('the on-page Agentation feedback toolbar'), immediately stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from feedback-related siblings by framing it as the tool that starts/stops collection, while list_feedback, update_site, and resolve_feedback are the downstream steps.

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: enable the toolbar to collect viewer annotations, then read/fix/resolve them. It names the relevant follow-up tools, which helps the agent understand where this fits in the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or how it compares to direct alternatives like list_feedback or resolve_feedback.

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