toggle_csp

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description goes beyond these structured hints by explaining that deactivated CSPs are not enforced, which clarifies the real-world impact of toggling. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The action verb appears first, and the consequence sentence earns its place by explaining why toggling matters.

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 one-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description adequately covers the action and a key behavioral consequence. It does not mention return values, but for a simple state-change tool this is not a significant gap.

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 provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter csp_id, including a description ('UUID da CSP'). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema already documents the only required field.

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 action ('Ativa ou desativa' – activates or deactivates) on a specific resource ('política de segurança' – security policy/CSP) and adds the operational effect that inactive CSPs are not applied. This distinguishes it from sibling toggle_* tools (toggle_trigger, toggle_schema) and from other CSP CRUD tools.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you want to change a CSP's active state, and the consequence statement ('CSPs inativas não são aplicadas') reinforces when deactivation matters. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., update_csp, delete_csp) or state when not to use this tool.

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