enable_passenger_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'enable/start' with no mention of side effects, permissions, reversibility, or consequences. For a mutating operation, there is zero transparency about what happens after execution.

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 redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource, scoring full marks for conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description needs to be more complete. It only states the action, with no information on when to use it, what the expected outcome is, or any side effects. For a simple single-parameter tool, it is still minimal and leaves significant gaps.

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 has 100% coverage, as the 'name' parameter is described as 'Application name'. The description adds the context that the application must be registered, which is a slight enhancement, but it does not provide additional detail beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Enable/start a registered application' uses a specific verb ('enable/start') and a resource ('registered application'). It clearly indicates the action, and the qualifier 'registered' distinguishes it from registration or listing tools. However, it could be more explicit about what 'enable' entails in the context of Passenger apps.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like register_passenger_app, unregister_passenger_app, or disable_passenger_app. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The phrase 'registered application' implies the app must be registered first, but this is not explicitly communicated.

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