toggle_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral implications. Simply saying 'toggle' does not disclose whether the operation is asynchronous, what happens if the stream is already in the target state, or whether it returns the new state. The description essentially restates the function name without adding behavioral context.

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, short sentence that conveys the core action without waste. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. It loses one point because its brevity is partly a result of under-specification rather than intentional conciseness of rich 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 toggle tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any context about the effect on overall stream state, whether there is a return value, or how it interacts with get_stream_status. Given the simplicity of the tool, a score of 3 reflects that it is acceptable but not fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since the schema is empty, and there is nothing to clarify. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 'Toggle the stream on/off' clearly states a specific verb (toggle) and resource (stream), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from start_stream and stop_stream by implying an action that changes the current state. However, the term 'stream' is slightly ambiguous without additional context, so it doesn't earn a perfect 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_stream, stop_stream, or get_stream_status. The description provides no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or how to decide between toggling and explicitly setting the state. This is a clear gap for a tool with many related siblings.

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