enable_server

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context by noting 'OAuth-first authentication' and describing the return dictionary, but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, or whether any prerequisite like a running gateway is required.

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 brief, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clean Args/Returns structure. Every line adds meaningful information without unnecessary padding.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter, and return shape. The missing usage guidance and deeper side-effect details are notable, but the tool's simplicity and the provided OAuth context keep the description reasonably complete.

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 compensates by defining server_name as the name of the server to enable and providing concrete examples like 'github', 'slack', and 'notion'. This is sufficient for a single required parameter, though it could have referenced list_available_servers for valid names.

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 'Enable a specific Docker MCP server by name', giving a specific verb and resource. The OAuth-first qualifier and the contrast with sibling tools like disable_server and list_enabled_servers make the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternative tools such as authorize_oauth, check_server_auth, or list_available_servers, and it lacks preconditions or context for when enabling is appropriate.

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