declare_enumDeclare or update an enum in the local type library to define named constants for reverse engineering. Specify the enum declaration text and optional instance or timeout.
Declare or update an enum in the local type library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decl | Yes | Enum declaration text (e.g. 'enum Name { ... };') | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| instance_id | No | Instance id override |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at an upsert ('declare or update') but never says whether an open database is required, whether changes are persisted before save_idb, or what happens on an invalid declaration. The instance_id parameter suggests multiple database contexts but this is never explained.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized for a mutating operation with three parameters and no annotations.
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?
The description omits the prerequisites an agent needs for a type-declaration mutation: whether a database must be open/selected first, what 'local type library' means relative to save_idb, and whether the enum persists across sessions. With no annotations and no output schema, these gaps are not covered elsewhere.
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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema (decl as declaration text, timeout, instance_id override). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 pair ('declare or update') and resource ('enum') scoped to the 'local type library'. The resource noun distinguishes it from sibling declare_struct and declare_typedef without needing to name them, though no explicit differentiation is given.
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 versus declare_struct, declare_typedef, or list_local_types, and no preconditions stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.