companies_toggle_sync

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation state-flip behavior, the required COMPANY_EDIT permission, the specific failure case with its error code, and the return value shape ({ syncEnabled, message }). It doesn't describe idempotency or whether toggling off behaves differently, but for a toggle tool the coverage is strong. Small gap but well above average.

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?

Four sentences packed with genuinely useful information: purpose, endpoint, permission, failure mode, return shape, and a recipe. Slightly dense in the second sentence with the HTTP details, but nothing is wasted and the info density is high without being bloated.

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 toggle operation this is remarkably complete: the purpose, mechanism, permission requirement, common failure mode with resolution path, return format, and a full enable recipe are all covered. The single required parameter is well documented in the schema. No output schema exists but the return shape is stated directly in the description. Nothing material is left unexplained.

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% (1 param, fully described as company UUID with instruction to use companies_list to find UUIDs). The description reinforces this by saying 'for a specific company' and references the UUID in the endpoint. Description adds the recipe context beyond raw schema but the schema already covers parameter semantics well, so a baseline-3-plus partial credit is fair.

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?

Clearly states the tool toggles ANAF SPV/e-Factura sync on/off for a specific company, with the exact endpoint (POST /api/v1/companies/{uuid}/toggle-sync) and the underlying effect (flips syncEnabled boolean). This is a specific verb+resource+outcome and clearly distinguishable from siblings like anaf_sync_trigger or anaf_sync_status.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance including the prerequisite: must connect via anaf_create_token_link first, and reveals the 422 ERR_SYNC_ENABLE_NO_TOKEN failure mode when no valid OAuth token exists. Also includes a complete step-by-step recipe (companies_list → anaf_create_token_link → anaf_validate_cif → companies_toggle_sync) for enabling on a fresh company, which is excellent usage direction.

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