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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: preview mode, no charge, rejection of unknown module names with the current modules left intact, portal switches turning on, and downstream feature flags being read by the apps. What it never explains is the destructive side that destructiveHint=true flags — whether modules not listed in the request get turned off. Given a replacement-style setter, that omission leaves the main risk unaddressed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence addresses a real behavior. A few sentences are lower-value for an agent, notably 'A group is not a separate price and not a separate setup step' and 'Show the groups as they are', which read as presentation instructions rather than invocation guidance. Overall it is dense but not padded.

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?

With four parameters, a nested features object, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the return shape (module_groups, preview contents) and error behavior. The remaining holes are group_id and the unstated removal semantics, both material but narrow.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description carries real weight: it establishes that modules entries are catalogue names and that invalid names are refused, and it explains that features are the switches that will change per platform. group_id is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, so a required-by-shape parameter remains opaque.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Turns on modules from this account's catalogue.' That is clearly distinct from the surrounding set_platform_* / crm_set_* tools, which address app settings, tabs, branding, menus. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so it is clear but not differentiating in the way a 5 would require.

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?

Prescribes an explicit two-step workflow: omitting confirm returns a preview and saves nothing, while confirm=true saves. That tells an agent exactly how to safely invoke it. It gives no guidance on when this tool is the right one versus create_platform_app or set_platform_app_settings, and no prerequisites are stated.

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