drc_rule_enable

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

The description accurately indicates that the tool changes the enabled state of a custom rule, which is a mutation. There are no annotations provided (annotations are empty), so the description's explicit statement of 'enable or disable' makes the behavioral intent clear. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether disabling a rule affects DRC runs, whether the change is persistent, whether it validates the rule_name, or whether there are any ordering constraints. Minimal but acceptable.

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, short sentence: 'Enable or disable a custom DRC rule.' It is front-loaded with the action verb, states the object, and includes both enable and disable variants. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition of the tool name. Every word contributes meaning; it is highly concise and well-formed.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 parameters and a straightforward purpose. The description, combined with schema, provides enough to understand the basic operation. However, the description does not address the broader context: it does not explain the relationship to DRC runs (e.g., whether changes take effect immediately), how to discover existing rule names (e.g., via drc_list_rules), or any caveats about disabling rules. Given the existence of sibling tools, a brief cross-reference would improve completeness. Also, the output schema exists but the description doesn't need to describe return values. Score 3 reflects adequate but not rich context.

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%, meaning the schema itself provides only parameter names, types, and required status but no descriptions. The description mentions 'enable or disable', which helps clarify the 'enabled' parameter (boolean, default true), and the schema clearly shows rule_name is a required string. However, the description does not explain the formatting of rule_name (e.g., exact name or wildcard), nor does it add any semantics beyond what the parameter names imply. Baseline 3 is fair given the schema is minimal.

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 clear verb-action: 'Enable or disable a custom DRC rule.' It clearly identifies the resource (custom DRC rule) and the action (enable/disable). It is concise and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like drc_rule_create or drc_rule_delete, which have different purposes. However, it lacks an explicit scope qualifier (e.g., 'a specified rule' or 'one or more'), but the schema's required rule_name implies a single rule.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool instead of others like drc_rule_create or drc_rule_delete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the rule must already exist) or contrast with related rule management tools. The context signals show there are multiple DRC rule tools (drc_list_rules, drc_rule_create, drc_rule_delete), but the description gives no comparison. Without any explicit usage context, score remains low.

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