actiond_plugin_enable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating the plugin 'fires on its configured trigger events' on every subsequent push, and by noting it must already be registered. It does not mention failure modes or auth requirements, but for a simple enabling action with these annotations the added context is strong.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, each earns its place: purpose, behavioral effect, prerequisite and discovery route, and scoped-out alternative. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 minimal one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it gives the project-context scope, the registration requirement, discovery methods, behavior after enabling, and a routing hint for a broader use case. No output schema is present, so explaining explicit return values is not mandatory, and errors/failures are likely best left to runtime messaging.

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 schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter ('plugin name to enable') with examples. The description adds extra semantic value: the name must correspond to a previously registered plugin, and exact names can be discovered via actiond_plugins_list. This helps the agent supply valid, correct values.

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 action ('Enable a CI/CD plugin') on a specific resource ('for the current project') and immediately clarifies what enabling entails. It further distinguishes itself from related siblings by referencing actiond_plugins_list, actiond_plugins_recommend, and actiond_profile_set, and by being the obvious counterpart to actiond_plugin_disable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance, including a prerequisite ('must already be registered') and names the exact discovery tools ('discover exact names with actiond_plugins_list, or use actiond_plugins_recommend'). It also says when NOT to use it and what to use instead: 'To change the whole CI scope at once, switch the execution profile with actiond_profile_set instead of toggling many plugins individually.'

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