vs_toggle

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

The description adds safety-critical behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation: disabling stops all traffic, an unconfirmed disable is preview-only and changes nothing, confirmed=True is required to actually disable, and enabling always executes. It also discloses the one-line result format.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, then result, then prerequisite, then safety. Every sentence contributes essential selection or invocation guidance without filler.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool, the description covers purpose, effect, prerequisite check, result shape, and the critical confirmation gate. Combined with the fully-documented schema and output schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, including the confirmed flag semantics. The description reinforces that confirmed gates only disable and is ignored for enable, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema.

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 the specific action ('Enable or disable a Virtual Service') and the concrete effect ('Disabling stops all traffic to it'). This clearly distinguishes vs_toggle from read-only siblings like vs_status and vs_list.

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to use vs_status first to check current state, and it explains the preview-vs-execute behavior for disabling based on the confirmed flag. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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