enable_crons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('enable') without mentioning side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or response format. This is a state-changing operation, and the description provides no additional transparency beyond the name.

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 redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the action, the resource, and the mechanism without wasted words.

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 one-parameter enable operation, the description is largely complete. It clarifies the intent (resume scheduling) and the target. Minor gaps like error handling or behavior on already-enabled tasks exist, but these are not critical given the low complexity and lack of an 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter (ids), and the description 'by ids' aligns with it. The description adds minimal nuance by specifying the resource but does not elaborate on the meaning of the IDs or any constraints, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'enable' and the resource 'cron tasks', with the scope limited to a set of IDs. The parenthetical 'resume scheduling' distinguishes this from sibling tools like run_crons or disable_crons, making the purpose immediately understandable.

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 phrase 'resume scheduling' provides clear context for when to use this tool: to re-enable cron tasks that were previously disabled or stopped. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list makes the distinction inferable.

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