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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the useful detail that the new enabled state is returned, which partly compensates for the missing output schema, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether toggling off stops active runs or clears pending schedules.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: it states the action, the object, and the return behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete: it defines the operation and the return value. It could add how to obtain the automationId or describe the enabled-state type, but neither is essential for calling 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does so only indirectly: 'scheduled automation' suggests automationId is the identifier of the automation to toggle. The parameter name is self-descriptive and the schema marks it required, but no guidance is given on where the ID comes from or what format it uses.

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 names a specific verb ('Toggle') and a specific resource ('scheduled automation'), making the tool's function unambiguous. The only other toggle tool among siblings targets exclusions, so this is readily distinguishable.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need to flip the enabled state of a scheduled automation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with related state-changing siblings such as pause/resume or enable/disable tools, and it does not point to list_automations for obtaining the ID.

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