yaaif_telemetry_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It provides meaningful transparency by stating 'no network, no tokens' and 'anonymous local', which informs the agent about privacy and side-effect guarantees. However, it does not disclose whether the setting persists across restarts or whether enabling/disabling affects existing counters, leaving some behavioral details unspecified.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action (Enable/disable) and includes all essential qualifiers (anonymous, local, no network, no tokens) with zero wasted words. Every element earns its place, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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 one-parameter boolean setter with no output schema, the description covers the core action, parameter semantics, and key behavioral context. It lacks explicit mention of return value or persistence, but these are minor for a toggle operation. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to 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?

The input schema has a single boolean parameter 'enabled' with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so explicitly: 'Enable/disable' maps directly to the boolean parameter, making it unambiguous that true enables and false disables. This fully explains the parameter's meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 (enable/disable) with a clear resource (anonymous local success/fail counters) and adds key qualifiers (anonymous, local, no network, no tokens) that distinguish it from telemetry retrieval tools like yaaif_telemetry_get. It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as yaaif_telemetry_get or yaaif_ops_telemetry. Usage is implied (toggle telemetry counters), but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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