st.extension.set_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core state-changing behavior and adds the prerequisite that confirm must be true, but it does not explain side effects, persistence, or what happens when confirm is missing or false.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the action, the resource, the scope, and the confirmation requirement.

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 three-parameter setter, the description covers the core operation and the notable confirm requirement. However, it lacks any mention of how to obtain the extension name, the return value, or the outcome when confirm is false, leaving some gaps given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 must compensate. It clarifies the confirm parameter constraint but does not elaborate on name or enabled beyond what their names imply. 'Enable or disable' indirectly maps to the enabled boolean, providing partial semantic value.

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 action — enable or disable — on a specific resource: a SillyTavern frontend extension. The qualifier 'discovered' helps distinguish it from installation/registry tools among siblings, and the resource type differentiates it from other set_enabled tools.

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 implies usage on already-discovered extensions and instructs that confirm must be true, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is present by implication rather than explicit comparison.

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