set_extension_enabled

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral detail: the tool cannot install, only toggles existing ones, and the bridge refuses to disable itself, requiring a human to reload. This goes beyond the annotation to explain consequences and a recovery step, without contradicting any 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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. The second sentence is long and packs a caveat plus a workaround, but it remains readable and every clause earns its place. Slightly verbose but efficient.

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?

It covers purpose, usage, and important behavioral caveats, and the presence of an output schema likely covers return values. However, it leaves session_id completely unexplained, which is a gap given the lack of schema descriptions. For a destructive tool, it does not mention permissions or errors, but the main missing piece is parameter semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all parameters. It only implies extension_id via 'by id' and mentions list_extensions, but never explicitly explains the 'enabled' boolean or the 'session_id' parameter. The schema titles ('Enabled', 'Extension Id') provide minimal help, but the description adds no semantic detail beyond that.

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 a specific verb (enable/disable) with a resource (installed extension) and method (by id). It also distinguishes itself from installation, which is not possible, and explicitly names list_extensions for ids. This fully differentiates it from any 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use context: toggling existing extensions only, not installing. It names the alternative (list_extensions) for obtaining ids, and gives a clear exclusion: the BTAP bridge cannot be disabled, with a workaround. This is thorough and actionable.

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