enable_expression

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing error conditions (e.g., what happens if no expression is present), side effects, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

While the description is very short, it is under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters. Conciseness is not achieved when essential information is omitted; every sentence should earn its place, but this single sentence provides minimal utility.

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 tool has 6 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description fails to clarify which composition/layer identification method to use, what happens after toggling, or how the result is communicated. The presence of many sibling tools makes this omission more harmful.

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%, meaning the description adds no value beyond the parameter names. It does not explain the roles of compId vs compName, layerName vs layerIndex, or which identifiers are required. The 'property' and 'enabled' parameters are not clarified.

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 a clear verb-resource pair ('enable or disable an expression'), which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like set_expression (which sets the expression code) or remove_expression (which removes it). The distinction that this tool toggles the active state is implicit but not elaborated.

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 vs alternatives. For example, it does not mention that an expression must already exist for this tool to have an effect, nor does it suggest using set_expression first. The single sentence lacks any contextual direction.

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