enable_config_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that state is mutated, but says nothing about permissions required, whether the change is reversible, what happens if the entry is not disabled, or what errors to expect.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too thin. It should at least explain that entry_id comes from the config-entry listing tools and what a successful re-enable implies.

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?

There is one required parameter (entry_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate for the gap — and it does not mention the parameter at all. The agent gets no hint about where entry_id comes from (e.g., list_config_entries or get_config_entry) or its format.

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?

States a specific verb ('Re-enable') and resource ('a previously disabled integration'), which distinguishes it from removal or reload. It does not differentiate from siblings like disable_config_entry or reload_config_entry, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 'previously disabled' implies this only applies to entries currently in a disabled state, giving minimal usage context. It never names alternatives such as disable_config_entry, remove_config_entry, or reload_config_entry, leaving the agent to infer when each applies.

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