enable_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses session-scoped persistence, that enabling is additive, that unknown names are skipped while others are enabled, and that the change cannot be undone except by restarting the server.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then gives necessary context. It is a bit long but every sentence contributes useful information about usage, behavior, and limitations. There is no redundant fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: what it does, when to use it, how to name tools, what happens with invalid names, session scope, and how to revert. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and predict its behavior.

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 schema already covers the parameter well, including the ['all'] special value and find_tool as the name source. The description adds useful behavioral nuance beyond the schema: unknown names are reported and skipped, the rest are enabled, and the session-scoped effect. This goes beyond the baseline but the schema does most of the semantic work.

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 a clear, specific action: adding dedicated operation tools to the current session, with examples. It also distinguishes itself from the lean default tool set and from run_operation, making the tool's function unambiguous even without opening the schema.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it only when calling the same operation many times and wanting parameters spelled out. It also says 'you rarely need this' and clarifies that run_operation already handles operations, which prevents overuse. It further tells the agent to get names from find_tool.

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