set_cleanup_rule_active

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description earns credit for adding detail annotations cannot convey: activation demands a confirmation token and matching live records are permanently deleted. It stops short of explaining whether deactivation is safe/reversible or what the response looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a bracketed warning; the destructive consequence is placed prominently and nothing is redundant.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the critical risks (permanent deletion, confirmation requirement) and the activate/deactivate scope. Remaining gaps—deactivation behavior, idempotency, and return value—are minor but real.

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 only 33%, and the description partially compensates by stating activation requires confirmation, which clarifies the conditional nature of the confirmation parameter. However it says nothing about sys_id (the rule identifier) or that active is a boolean toggle, so roughly the rest of the parameter surface is undocumented.

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 (activate/deactivate) and resource (Table Cleanup Rule), which is immediately distinguishable from generic update tools. However it does not differentiate itself from near-identical siblings such as set_archive_rule_active, set_destroy_rule_active, or set_usem_rule_active, leaving the agent to infer which rule type applies.

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?

Implies usage (toggle a cleanup rule on/off) and flags the destructive consequence, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names the sibling tools that target other rule types. An agent knows roughly what it does but must guess at routing among the four set_*_rule_active tools.

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