set_package_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying `pm enable` / `pm disable-user` commands, which is useful, but omits permissions needed, side effects on running apps, reversibility, and whether the change persists.

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 zero waste. The core operation and the underlying commands are delivered immediately.

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?

Although an output schema exists and covers return values, the tool is a mutation with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage. The description is too thin to fully prepare an agent for correct invocation, especially regarding parameter semantics and side effects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the `package` and `enabled` parameters through the operation name, but says nothing about the `serial` parameter or the exact mapping of `enabled` to `pm enable` versus `pm disable-user`.

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 operation (enable or disable a package) and maps it to the underlying `pm enable` / `pm disable-user` commands. This is clearly distinct from sibling package tools like install, uninstall, clear_app_data, and list_packages.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `uninstall` or `clear_app_data`, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the operation name.

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