app-addon_enable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action 'enable' but doesn't disclose side effects, such as whether enabling requires a restart, changes to the UI, or potential errors if the module is already enabled. The description is too terse to convey behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it is under-specified, but for conciseness, it earns a 4 because it is not verbose and gets to the point quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal but lacks essential context. It doesn't mention how to obtain the module id, what happens if the module is not installed, or any related tools like app-addons for listing add-ons. The description is incomplete for an agent to use it confidently.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'module' parameter. The schema only provides the title 'Add-on module id', but the description doesn't clarify what constitutes a valid module id, how to find it, or any format expectations. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 the action (enable) and the resource (installed Blender add-on module). It distinguishes from the sibling tool app-addon_disable, which performs the opposite action. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the context of add-on management beyond the name, but the verb+resource is specific enough.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like the add-on being installed or disabled, nor does it reference the sibling app-addon_disable for disabling. The description is minimal and provides no context for selection.

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