set_integration_active

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing a runtime precondition (WRITE_ENABLED=true) and the privilege level (admin-level change), plus the real-world consequence of toggling a security data feed. The annotations already cover idempotency, read-only and destructive flags, so the description's added operational context is the value here; it stops short of noting reversibility or audit implications.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the domain effect and the write precondition. No filler, and the parenthetical table name and warning tag are efficient use of space.

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?

With only two required params, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent still needs: the target table, the effect of the toggle, and the WRITE_ENABLED/admin gate. It could be stronger by pointing to the sibling that returns sys_ids, but nothing critical is missing.

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 100% for both parameters (boolean active with 'true to enable, false to disable'; 32-char sys_id), so the schema carries the weight. The description adds only the table identity (sn_sec_int_impl) and the on/off framing, which is marginal beyond the schema—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 precise verb (enable/disable), the exact resource (integration implementation, table sn_sec_int_impl) and the domain effect ('turns a security data feed on or off'). An agent can distinguish this instantly from read-oriented siblings like list_integration_implementations or get_integration_health without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the wording: it operates by sys_id on an existing implementation and sets a boolean state. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives, nor that a sys_id must first be obtained from list_integration_implementations, and gives no when-not guidance (e.g. disabling feeds in production).

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