enable_bundle_capability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Enable' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens if the capability is already enabled, whether changes are reversible, or what the typical response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though the brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions. Every word in the description serves a purpose.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after enabling a capability, what errors might occur, or how this tool fits into broader workflows. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects and outcomes.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of valid 'settings' configurations, or clarify the meaning of 'enabling' a capability type. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('enable') and target ('capability for a bundle ID'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it's vague about what 'enable' entails operationally and doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'disable_bundle_capability' beyond the verb difference. The description lacks specificity about what enabling a capability actually does in this context.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the bundle ID must exist first), appropriate contexts, or relationships with sibling tools like 'disable_bundle_capability' or 'create_bundle_id'. The agent receives no usage context beyond the literal description.

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