request_rule_enable

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: it files a *pending* request rather than applying the change, it re-runs the readiness check as a side effect, and it refuses non-ready rules. It stops short of describing duplicate-request behavior or what the human approval flow looks like.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the most important caveat ('This does NOT enable the rule'). No filler; the only mild redundancy is the restatement of 'enable a rule' in the negation, which is defensible as a guard against misuse.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the mutation/refusal semantics are well covered. The remaining gap is the two undocumented required parameters, which for a request-submission tool is a meaningful omission since justification quality affects human approval.

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% for two required parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it adds nothing about them. Neither the expected form of 'rule_id' nor the purpose/audience of 'justification' (who reads it, why it matters) is explained anywhere.

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+resource ('Ask a human to enable a rule') and clarifies the critical scope boundary that it does NOT itself enable the rule. It implicitly separates itself from check_rule_readiness (which it re-runs internally) and get_enable_request, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is the path for requesting enablement and it is refused for rules not in 'ready' state. However, it never says what to do instead when a rule is refused (e.g., run check_rule_readiness first, or remediate readiness failures), nor does it name any alternative tool.

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