security_enable_rls

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details beyond the raw action. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, whether existing policies are affected, or any permissions required. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 a single, clear sentence that is easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves out important context such as what happens after enabling RLS, whether the operation is reversible, and the relationship to security policies. It is incomplete enough to warrant improvement but not totally inadequate.

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 coverage is 100% (the only parameter, table_name, has a description). The description itself does not add parameter details, but the schema fully explains the parameter's purpose, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Enable') and resource ('Row Level Security on a table'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like security_disable_rls and security_create_policy. It immediately tells the agent what action is performed and on what target.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., enabling RLS before creating policies), no exclusions, and no reference to related security tools. The description is purely a statement of functionality.

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