enable_docset_fts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (enable FTS) and the return value, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether this is a one-time configuration or reversible, potential side effects, or performance implications. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the formatting with separate sections could be slightly more integrated for optimal front-loading.

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 has an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and only one parameter with good semantic coverage in the description, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and references sibling tools, though additional behavioral context would be beneficial for a configuration/mutation tool.

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 description provides crucial semantic information about the single parameter: it specifies that 'identifier' refers to 'The docset identifier' and clarifies it should come 'from list_installed_docsets'. With 0% schema description coverage, this information significantly compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules.

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 action ('enable full-text search') and resource ('for a specific docset'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the specificity of enabling FTS for docsets distinguishes it from listing, loading, or searching documentation tools.

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 implied usage context by mentioning that the identifier should come 'from list_installed_docsets', suggesting a prerequisite workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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