enable_nsfw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral edge case (empty/None enables for all tokens) but does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, reversible, or if any permissions are required. For a simple enable action, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and covers the critical edge case. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, the schema fully documents that parameter, and an output schema exists so return values are already specified. The description covers the primary behavior and the all-tokens case, leaving only minor gaps such as whether the operation is persistent or scoped to a session.

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 100% because the schema and description both explain the 'empty or None = all tokens' behavior. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 NSFW for specified tokens, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (add/delete/list) by focusing on the enable operation and explicitly handling the all-tokens edge case.

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 implies usage when NSFW needs to be enabled, and the empty/None behavior is a useful nuance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_add_tokens or list_tokens. No alternative names are mentioned.

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