toggle_auto_renew

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (toggle auto-renewal) with no mention of side effects, permissions, idempotency, or return value. This is a mutation tool, and the description omits important operational context beyond the core action.

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 a single sentence, immediately states the action and resource types, and contains no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and uses efficient language.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description does not mention what happens after toggling (e.g., whether the new state is returned or a confirmation is given). Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate for basic use but leaves minor gaps around the result of the operation.

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 50%: rental_id has a format hint, while auto_renew has no description. The tool description clarifies that rental_id accepts ren_xxx or ded_xxx, matching the schema, but does not add meaning to auto_renew beyond what the tool name and description already convey. The description partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Turn on/off') and clearly identifies the resource (auto-renewal for long-term rentals and dedicated numbers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other sibling mentions auto-renewal toggling, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly scopes the tool to long-term rentals (ren_xxx) and dedicated numbers (ded_xxx), giving clear context for when to use it. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but since no sibling tool offers this functionality, the guidance is sufficient.

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