mesa_policy_enable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well to disclose the concrete side effect (AVU write) and the conditional DuckLake record-keeping, but omits idempotency (what if the policy is already enabled), required permissions, and error behavior on a non-existent path.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the enable mechanism is front-loaded and the secondary DuckLake note follows. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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 two-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers what happens on success (AVU written, DuckLake updated if MESA-enabled). It falls just short of complete by not covering failure modes or confirmation of the resulting state.

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 both parameters fully. The description restates the policy_name-to-AVU-suffix mapping rather than adding new format or validation meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Enable), a specific resource (a MESA policy on a project root collection), and the exact mechanism (writing mesa.policy.<policy_name>=true AVU). The inversion against the sibling mesa_policy_disable is unambiguous from the verb plus the hardcoded '=true' value.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose — enabling a policy for a project root — but the description gives no explicit when/when-not guidance, no prerequisite checks (e.g., inspecting with ds_list_policies first), and does not name the alternative tool for the inverse operation.

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