set_usem_rule_active

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the gating context: it needs WRITE_ENABLED=true and is an admin-level config change. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured fields. It stops short of describing failure behavior or confirming the change is trivially reversible by re-toggling.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carrying the action, the scope limit, the escape-hatch sibling, and the write gate. Dense but purposeful; the layered parenthetical plus bracketed tag slightly hurt scannability without adding waste.

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 3-parameter toggle with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what it flips, which rule types it rejects, where to go instead, and the write gate. 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema does not encode: it narrows the 16-value rule_type enum to the subset that actually has an active flag. It adds nothing about sys_id or active, which the schema already documents well.

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 pair and resource ("Enable or disable a USEM/VR rule") plus the exact mechanism ("convenience toggle of the active flag"). This clearly separates it from the heavier sibling update_usem_rule and from the other per-family toggles like set_archive_rule_active.

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 when-not case with the exact rule types that have no active flag (exception_rule, exception_config, calculator_config, risk_field, risk_score_weight) and routes the agent to update_usem_rule for those. It also states the environment prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true), so selection and prerequisites are both covered.

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