set_extension_enabled

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing that Chrome has no install API, that the BTAP bridge refuses to disable itself, and that a human reload is needed for a new build. These are non-obvious behaviors the agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff, and the primary behavior is front-loaded. Each sentence adds necessary context: what the tool does, how to find IDs, and an important self-disable caveat with a workaround.

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 simple toggle tool, the description covers the operational essentials: target identification via list_extensions, the no-install constraint, the self-disable limitation, and the human-reload step for development. An output schema exists for return values, so the description need not restate them; nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the bare schema. It clarifies extension_id ('by id') and implicitly covers 'enabled' via 'Enable or disable', but it never mentions session_id at all. Since one of three parameters is completely undocumented, the parameter semantics are only partially addressed.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Enable or disable an installed extension by id.' It immediately distinguishes this from installation and lists the sibling tool for getting IDs, so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs.

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 says 'use list_extensions for ids', giving the agent actionable guidance for the required parameter. It also states that installation is not possible via this tool. However, it does not fully contrast with related tools like uninstall_extension or extension_path, so the usage guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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