enable_evaluate

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (modification) but destructiveHint=false. The description adds that unlocking is session-scoped and reversible via `disable_evaluate`. It does not disclose potential side effects of enabling JavaScript execution, but the session scoping and re-lock instruction provide sufficient behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first defines the action, the second gives a precise usage guideline. No extraneous text; every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers purpose, usage scenario, and session scoping. It references the sibling tool `disable_evaluate` for context. This is complete for an agent to use 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The input schema coverage is 100% (no parameters). Per the rule, baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description does not need to add parameter info.

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?

The description explicitly states it unlocks the `evaluate` tool (run arbitrary page JavaScript) for the session. This clearly identifies the action (unlock) and resource (evaluate tool), distinguishing it from siblings like `disable_evaluate` and `evaluate`.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call ONLY when the user explicitly asks' and 'Re-lock with disable_evaluate.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool and points to the alternative sibling, fulfilling the criteria perfectly.

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