toggle_schema

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that inactive schemas are not loaded into the agent runtime, which helps the agent anticipate side effects beyond the 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 is only two sentences, with the primary action stated first and the most important behavioral consequence second. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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 simple one-parameter toggle operation, the description covers what the tool does and an important runtime consequence. It does not mention the return value or whether the new state is returned, but given no output schema and a very simple input, 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 schema already fully documents the single required parameter, schema_id, with type and format. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 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 activates or deactivates a schema without deleting it, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from delete_schema and update_schema, and its meaning is unambiguous even among many sibling 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 description sets clear context: use this to change a schema's active/inactive state while preserving it. It explicitly excludes deletion behavior, but it does not name sibling alternatives like get_schema or delete_schema for comparison.

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