companies_toggle_sync

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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive); the description adds the permission required (COMPANY_EDIT), the failure mode with the specific messageKey, and the return shape { syncEnabled, message }. This is context the agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, error behavior, and return shape — every sentence carries operational value. The closing recipe slightly repeats the earlier anaf_create_token_link mention, a minor redundancy that keeps it just short of a 5.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: permission requirement, prerequisite token state, the specific error on failure, the returned fields, and the multi-step onboarding path. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 100% and the single companyId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including how to find the UUID via companies_list. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Toggle ANAF SPV / e-Factura synchronization on or off for a specific company') and names the exact endpoint and boolean flipped (syncEnabled). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like anaf_sync_trigger or anaf_sync_status without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite (valid ANAF OAuth token, otherwise 422 ERR_SYNC_ENABLE_NO_TOKEN) and the alternative to run first (anaf_create_token_link). It even gives the full ordering recipe for a fresh company: companies_list → anaf_create_token_link → anaf_validate_cif → companies_toggle_sync.

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