cron_enable

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool rewrites the root crontab, preserves lines outside the MCP section, comments out the line when disabled, and does nothing for nonexistent IDs. This provides good behavioral context beyond the basic mutation.

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 relatively concise, covering purpose, parameters, side effects, and edge case in a single paragraph. It could be slightly more front-loaded, but every sentence adds value.

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 no annotations and 2 required parameters, the description is thorough. It explains the tool's impact (rewriting crontab), safety (does nothing for missing ID), and behavior (preserving non-MCP lines). An output schema is present but not needed for completeness.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It fully explains job_id selects an existing job and enabled toggles activation, including the mechanism (commenting with '# '). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 clearly states the tool enables or disables an MCP-managed root cronjob. It specifies the verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like cron_add or cron_remove, though the purpose is distinguishable.

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?

The description explains how to use the parameters (job_id selects existing job, enabled=True/False). It notes that the tool does nothing if the ID doesn't exist, providing some guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide when-not scenarios.

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