set_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the toggle action but does not explain scoping behavior (e.g., whether link_ids/package_ids act as filters or targets), the effect on running downloads, or whether changes are reversible. This is insufficient 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to defining the action and scope, achieving maximum brevity while remaining clear.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is extremely thin. It fails to clarify the role of the selection parameters (link_ids, package_ids), the default behavior when they are null, or the practical difference between 'enabled' and related sibling actions. This is inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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 compensate. It only adds meaning for the 'stage' parameter by listing valid values, but it does not explain 'enabled', 'link_ids', or 'package_ids' beyond their names and schemas. Given 4 parameters and minimal param-level guidance, this is a significant gap.

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 identifies the action ('Enable/disable') and the resource ('items in the given stage'), and explicitly enumerates valid stage values (linkgrabber | downloads). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_priority or control_downloads, making the primary function unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you need to toggle item enabled-state within a specific stage, and the stage list provides some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the guidance only implicit.

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