set_correlation_rule_active

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

The description explicitly states the mutation action (activate/deactivate), so the agent knows it's a state-changing operation. However, it lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or error behavior when rule_id is invalid.

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 concise with two sentences. The second sentence provides a parameter note but could be integrated more elegantly. No superfluous content.

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 simple mutation tool with 3 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the basic purpose and one parameter. It lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it just adequate.

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 0%, and the description only explains the 'server' parameter. It does not add meaning for 'rule_id' or 'active' beyond their names and types. For a tool with 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient but baseline is 3.

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 states the action ('activate or deactivate') and the resource ('correlation rule by id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_correlation_rule, create_correlation_rule, and delete_correlation_rule by focusing on changing activation 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., rule must exist) or when to use this tool instead of creating or deleting rules.

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