enable_tools

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

The annotation only provides readOnlyHint=false, which is minimal. The description adds substantial behavior disclosure: the operation is idempotent, reports tokens added, can accept the special value 'everything', and token counts per pack indicate a cost/effect. This goes well beyond the structured annotation.

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 long but well-structured: a lead sentence, a compact task map, then bulleted pack definitions. Each bullet conveys unique, necessary information (pack name, token count, feature list), so no sentence is wasted or redundant.

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 tool with a single array parameter and an output schema, the description covers all relevant context: valid values, side effects, token costs, the inverse sibling, and task-based pack selection. Since an output schema exists, not detailing return values is acceptable, and there are no obvious missing 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?

The input schema gives 'packs' as an array of strings with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by enumerating all valid pack names, offering the special 'everything' option, and mapping tasks to pack names, so an agent knows exactly what strings to pass and what they will enable.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Enable optional tool packs mid-session' and clarifies that sessions start lite. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'disable_tools' by explicitly naming it as the reverse operation, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It explicitly names 'disable_tools' as the tool that reverses this one, giving clear when-not-to-use context. The task-to-pack map provides concrete guidance for selecting the right pack based on the desired capability, and the 'sessions start lite' preface establishes why this tool would be needed at all.

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