toggle_builtin_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that changes apply to the project's .claude/settings.json, that 'status' is non-mutating, and precisely defines the counterintuitive 'on' meaning (block) versus 'off' (allow). While it doesn't mention persistence across sessions or the format of status output, these are minor gaps for a simple toggle tool.

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 well-structured with a clear opening line followed by 'Key Features' and 'Edge Cases' sections. Every sentence adds value: the action semantics, project scope, status check, and the important clarification that 'on' blocks. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses bullets for readability without redundancy.

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 tool with a single optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: functionality, side effects, usage guidance, and edge cases. It even explains the surprising 'on' behavior and how to inspect current state. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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 schema describes the single 'action' parameter with 100% coverage, including its default and meaning. The description adds contextual guidance on when to use each enum value, but this is practical advice rather than new semantic meaning. Given full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool toggles Claude Code's built-in WebSearch and WebFetch tools, a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like web_search and web_fetch by focusing on enabling/disabling built-in capabilities rather than performing the searches/fetches themselves.

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 'Edge Cases & Best Practices' section explicitly explains when to use each action value ('on' to block when preferring MCP implementation, 'off' to restore native tools, 'status' to check) and clarifies the non-obvious semantics. This leaves no ambiguity about when or how to employ the tool versus alternatives.

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