toggle_trigger

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description adds a meaningful consequence—'Triggers desabilitados não disparam execuções'—which helps the agent understand the effect of disabling, though it does not go deeper into side effects or reversibility.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable behavioral context rather than repeating the schema.

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 two-parameter toggle operation, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, the consequence of disabling, and the schema covers all parameters. Minor gaps are the lack of usage guidance and no mention of return format, but these are not critical for a straightforward toggle tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions in the input schema ('true para habilitar, false para desabilitar' and 'UUID do trigger'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 states a specific action ('Habilita ou desabilita') on a specific resource ('um trigger'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes it from trigger CRUD siblings by focusing solely on enable/disable state.

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 gives no guidance about when to reach for this tool versus alternatives like update_trigger, list_triggers, or the other toggle tools (toggle_csp, toggle_schema). The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the action verb.

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