table_enable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Activate/deactivate' without disclosing side effects, error behavior, or whether operations are reversible. The behavioral impact of toggling an entry's active state is not explained.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, conciseness should not come at the expense of essential details; the sentence omits parameter explanations and behavioral context, making it barely adequate.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and two parameters with zero schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'activate' means operationally, what happens to the entry, or the return value, leaving significant gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'id' or 'active' parameters. While the 'active' boolean is implied by 'Activate/deactivate', the crucial 'id' parameter is left undefined. The agent lacks necessary context to correctly use the parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Activate/deactivate an entry') and provides a concrete example ('Auto Assembler 'script' entry'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like table_freeze or table_set_value. However, it does not define 'entry' in the context of the tool's table, leaving some ambiguity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like table_set_value or table_freeze. It does not specify prerequisites, nor does it mention when deactivation is preferred over activation.

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