enable_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention what 'enable' does to the schedule, whether it is idempotent, what happens if the schedule is already enabled, or whether any permissions or side effects are involved. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. It leads with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a structured argument list. No unnecessary words or filler; every part earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers the basic mechanics but lacks broader context. It does not explain the effect of enabling a schedule, error conditions, or how it relates to sibling tools. It is minimally viable but not fully 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter (schedule_id is 'the ID of the schedule to enable' and folder_name is 'the display name of the folder containing the schedule'). This is useful but minimal, adding only surface-level meaning without deeper semantic context like format constraints or relationships.

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 the core action clearly: 'Enable a process schedule.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like disable_schedule. However, it is almost a verbatim restatement of the tool name and adds little beyond that.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preconditions (e.g., schedule must be disabled), scenarios where enabling is appropriate, or related tools like list_schedules or disable_schedule. The description simply states what it does without usage context.

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