Enable or disable an addon

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds valuable extra behavior: the prior state is snapshotted before the write and can be reverted via nuvio_undo. This gives the agent important safety context beyond the structured hints. It does not fully describe side effects or failure modes, but it is solid for a write operation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The second sentence provides a useful operational caveat without bloating the description. Every word earns its place.

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 core action and undo behavior are documented, and the schema provides parameter names, types, and constraints. However, the tool has no output schema and no parameter descriptions, leaving the relationship among id, url, and profile_id implicit. An agent could plausibly call it incorrectly because identifying the target addon is not fully specified. This makes the definition adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only maps 'on or off' to enabled and 'profile' to profile_id. It does not clarify how id versus url identifies the addon, whether one or both are needed, how profile_id relates to the target, or what the optional parameters mean. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond parameter names.

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 states a precise action ('Turn one addon on or off') and a specific resource scope ('for a profile'), clearly distinguishing it from addon lifecycle siblings like nuvio_add_addon, nuvio_update_addon, and nuvio_remove_addon. The title reinforces the same behavior. There is no ambiguity about what operation this tool performs.

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 context for when to use this tool: when you want to enable or disable a single addon for a profile. It does not explicitly reference alternatives like nuvio_update_addon, nor does it state exclusions, but the focused verb and scope make the intended use reasonably evident. It stops short of fully routing the agent among the many addon-related siblings.

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