enable_expression

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'enable or disable' without explaining side effects, whether an expression must already exist, or what happens to the state. This is insufficient 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 sentence with no fluff, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters. Brevity here sacrifices necessary information, making it inappropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is fundamentally incomplete. It provides no information about how to identify the expression, how to specify parameters, or what the expected behavior is.

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%, so the description should compensate, but it adds nothing about the 6 parameters. Only 'enabled' is inferable from the tool name; compId, compName, property, layerName, layerIndex are all unexplained, leaving their roles ambiguous.

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 tool enables or disables an expression, differentiating it from set_expression (which sets the expression code) and remove_expression (which removes it). However, it doesn't clarify which expression or how it is identified, so it's clear but not fully specific.

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 like set_expression or get_expression. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned.

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