vortex_set_mod_enabled

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

Annotations only declare it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive; the description adds the material behavior that the operation is queued asynchronously, returns a job ID, and may trigger Vortex auto-deploy. That downstream side effect is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of saying whether the change persists or needs deployment to take effect.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the async return and side effect. No 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains that a job ID is returned and that auto-deploy may follow. However, for a 3-parameter mutation tool with weak schema coverage, it omits permission requirements, how job completion is confirmed, and the meaning of profileId.

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 only 33% (only modId is documented), so the description must carry the rest but largely does not. It implies the enabled flag toggles state and references the active profile, but says nothing about profileId and even risks confusing it with the 'ACTIVE profile' phrase.

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/disable) and resource (an installed mod) with scope (ACTIVE Vortex profile), which separates it from vortex_mods (listing) and vortex_remove_mod (removal). The 'ACTIVE profile' phrasing is slightly muddled because the schema separately requires a profileId, so the scope claim is not entirely clean.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The only routing hint ('get it from vortex_mods') lives in the schema, not the description.

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