Enable a config entry

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false). The description goes further by disclosing the implementation (calls config_entries/disable with disabled_by=None to clear the disabled state) and the failure mode (RuntimeError on an unknown entry_id). The 'Returns' line is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, keeping this 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then clearly sectioned into mechanism, use-when, not-for, returns, and errors. Every line contributes, with no filler or repetition.

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 mutation, the description covers mechanism, routing to siblings, error behavior, and return source; an output schema exists so return value detail is unnecessary. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 entry_id is already fully documented in the schema (including where to source it). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is appropriate here and matches the baseline-3 rule when the schema carries the burden.

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?

Specific verb (re-enable) + resource (a previously disabled integration's config entry), with an explicit scope distinction against siblings. An agent can distinguish it from integrations_disable_integration and integrations_start_config_flow without opening any 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?

Explicit 'Use when' (bringing back an integration disabled via integrations_disable_integration) and 'Not for' (new setup -> integrations_start_config_flow) sections name the conditions and the alternatives directly. Nothing is left to inference.

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