Enable entity in registry

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds genuinely new context: the exact WS endpoint and the `disabled_by=None` mechanism, which explains why the operation is idempotent and reversible. It does not mention permissions or side effects beyond the registry entry, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Four short lines with the primary action front-loaded, then mechanism, usage routing, exclusion, and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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 toggle whose output schema already defines the returned registry entry, this description covers purpose, mechanism, when/when-not, and return source. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single entity_id parameter already carries an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the implied constraint that the ID must reference a previously disabled entity; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Re-enable a previously disabled entity in the registry') and even names the underlying WS call, so the effect is unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like entities_disable_entity and integrations_enable_integration.

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?

Explicitly gives 'Use when: restoring an entity disabled via entities_disable_entity' and 'Not for: disabling it — use entities_disable_entity.' Both the trigger condition and the alternative tool are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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