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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that enabling applies to the current user and that platform-level hidden tools get a positive override, but it omits permission requirements, error behavior, idempotency, and confirmation/return behavior.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the platform-level override detail that an agent may need.

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 two-parameter state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a solid purpose and one important edge behavior. It still leaves _org unexplained and does not describe what a successful or failed enable operation returns.

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 coverage is only 50%: the name parameter is documented in the schema with examples, while _org is undocumented. The description does not clarify the role or expected value of _org and adds no parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides for name.

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 provides a specific verb and resource: 'Re-enable a previously disabled tool,' and scopes it to the current user. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling oto_disable_tool by focusing on previously disabled tools, but it never names the alternative or explicitly routes between them.

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 by 'Re-enable a previously disabled tool,' which suggests this is the undo action after a tool has been disabled. However, it does not state when not to use the tool, what happens if the tool was never disabled, or whether oto_list_my_tools should be consulted first.

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