enable_monitor

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

Annotations already declare it is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-destructive, so the agent knows the safety profile. The description usefully adds that the monitor comes back with default settings — implying prior scale/position/mirror customizations are reset — but says nothing about behavior on an invalid or unknown monitor name. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but thin.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, and the key qualifier ("default settings") is present rather than buried. Nothing to trim or reorder.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive toggle with full schema coverage and annotations, this covers nearly everything an agent needs. The only real gap is the absence of a pointer to the disable_monitor/list_monitors workflow that would confirm the name.

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 includes a concrete example ('HDMI-A-1'), so the parameter is fully self-documenting. The description adds only the implicit contract that the name refers to a disabled monitor, no format or resolution details 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Enable a disabled monitor") plus a scoping qualifier ("with its default settings"), which clearly separates it from disable_monitor and list_monitors in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name the counterpart tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only implied by the precondition "disabled" — an agent can infer this applies to an off monitor. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over set_monitor_dpms or mirror_monitor, and no note about what to do if the monitor is already enabled.

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