Enable tool group

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) it discloses the actual side effect: the SDK emits tools/list_changed and the client refreshes mid-conversation. It also states the monotonicity rule — enabling never narrows, so simple on an already-full section leaves it at full — which concretely explains the idempotentHint rather than restating it.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the effect before the arguments and the cost warning. The SDK/tools-list_changed sentence carries two clauses but each conveys a distinct consequence, so nothing is padding; it could be slightly tighter but is not bloated.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive operation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect, arguments, side effects, and prerequisite. The remaining gap is what the call itself returns (a confirmation, or the refreshed tool list) — minor since the tool list refresh is already explained.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes past it by explaining tier semantics: default full, rejected for on/off sections, and the non-narrowing behavior when the requested tier is lower than the current one. It does not add anything about the group parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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?

It states a concrete effect: widening a section so its tools appear in tools/list, which is clearly not what disable_tool_group or list_tool_groups does. The only friction is terminology — the tool is named *_tool_group but the body consistently says "section," so the agent must map group=section on its own.

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?

It names a prerequisite ("Run list_tool_groups first") and a selection rule for the tier argument (simple/full, default full, not accepted on on/off sections). It also gives a usage constraint — "Be sparing: every enabled tool adds its schema to your context budget" — which tells the agent when not to call it, something most definitions omit.

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