Enable Tools

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, but the description adds that it reports tokens added and that disable_tools reverses the change. This gives useful state-change and cost context beyond the structured annotations. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 front-loads the core behavior, then provides a task map, then a structured pack list. Every section earns its place given the need to document seven different pack options, and the formatting makes scanning easy.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers when to use the tool, valid pack names, what each pack does, token implications, idempotency, and the inverse operation. An agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly.

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 provides no descriptions and no enums for the packs parameter, but the description fully compensates. It defines valid values as the names below or ['everything'], enumerates all seven pack names, and explains what each pack enables. This turns an opaque array-of-strings schema into a usable selection mechanism.

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 first sentence states a specific action and target: enable optional tool packs mid-session. It also distinguishes itself from disable_tools by noting that disable_tools reverses this operation. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it relates to its sibling.

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 clear when-to-use context: sessions start lite, so this tool is for adding optional packs mid-session. It names the inverse tool, disable_tools, and provides a task-to-pack mapping, enabling the agent to select the correct pack for common jobs.

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