Enable a tool package

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: a list_changed notification is emitted, denied packages are refused rather than erroring opaquely, read-only packages expose only read tools, and the effect is session-scoped and ephemeral. The only gap is the absence of any statement about permissions required to enable a denied package (what makes a package 'denied').

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. There is mild redundancy between "for this session" and "Ends with the session," which prevents a 5.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to cover side effects and lifecycle, which it does (notification, denial, read-only filtering, session expiry). Prerequisite/authorization context would round it out but is not essential for correct invocation.

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 both 'name' (with a format example) and 'instance' (defaulting to the active profile) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing on parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 and resource ("Enable a tool package") plus scope ("for this session"), which cleanly separates it from disable_package and list_packages in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name the counterpart tool, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it calls this to load a package's tools for the session. There is no guidance on prerequisite steps (e.g., list_packages or find_tools first, credential/instance setup) or when to prefer this over other activation paths.

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