set_mod_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does add valuable mechanism detail (the jar is renamed, not deleted, so the action is reversible and non-destructive of the file). It omits failure behavior, whether the instance must be stopped, and whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that leads with the action and follows with the mechanism.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented required parameters. The description should clarify parameter formats and whether any result (e.g., new filename) is returned; it does neither.

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 coverage is 0% and the description explains none of the three required parameters. Critically, it does not say whether 'file' is a bare jar name, a full path, or should include the .jar/.disabled suffix, nor what form 'instance' takes — the most error-prone ambiguity in this tool.

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 pair (enable/disable), the resource (a mod), and the exact mechanism (renaming the jar to/from the .disabled extension). This clearly separates it from siblings like remove_mod, install_mod, or update_mod.

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 by the verb: toggling state rather than removing the mod. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over remove_mod, whether it works on already-disabled files, or any prerequisites (instance closed, valid instance name).

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