writ_github_toggle_pr_comments

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value beyond the schema by disclosing the default state and the absence of a TOTP step-up, but it leaves out authorization/permission requirements and the fact that the change is a reversible per-installation setting rather than a one-way 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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct job: what it does, its default and auth behavior, and the prerequisite lookup. The operative fact (default OFF) is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter toggle and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The remaining minor gap is permission requirements for a mutating call with no annotations to cover it.

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 must compensate for both parameters. It meaningfully explains where installation_id comes from (writ_github_installations) but says nothing about 'enabled' beyond the implied semantics of 'enable or disable', and never states whether installation_id must be for an already-installed app.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ('Enable or disable the optional PR-comment bot') scoped to 'a GitHub App installation', so the agent knows exactly what state is being changed and at what level. It does not need to differentiate from any sibling, since none of the listed tools touch PR-comment bot settings, but it also doesn't explicitly say so.

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?

It states the current default (OFF), removes a common blocker ('No TOTP step-up is required'), and routes the agent to writ_github_installations for the required installation_id. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or indication of what permissions are needed, which keeps it short of a 5.

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