pool_set_enabled

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and readOnlyHint, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: disabling affects only new sessions, existing sessions continue running; confirm=False previews changes; and the action is audited. This significantly exceeds the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, two key behavioral sentences, and a clean Args bullet list. Every sentence adds value with no 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 four-parameter state-changing tool with no output schema, this description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and even references pool_list for ID sourcing. The agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the Args section explains all four parameters clearly: pool_id (from pool_list), enabled (true/false), confirm (preview/apply), and target (Horizon config default). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with '[WRITE] Enable or disable a desktop pool' — a specific action on a concrete resource, and adds valuable scope ('disabling stops NEW sessions (existing keep running)') that distinguishes it from related read-only tools like pool_get and pool_list.

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 gives clear operational context: idempotent behavior, confirm=False previews vs confirm=True applies, and target default from config. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to other pool operations, so it stops short of a full 5.

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