enable_dangerous_writes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a write secret is required and that it enables delete and structural changes, which is useful. However, it does not explain whether this is a persistent mode toggle, whether it is reversible, or what the response looks like. The behavioral footprint is only partially covered.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose and a prerequisite without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the secret requirement. Missing are explicit usage guidance versus siblings (like enable_writes) and any side effects or statefulness. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter 'secret'. It does so by stating 'Requires the write secret', which gives context that the secret is a credential needed for the operation. However, it does not explain what the secret is, how to obtain it, or its format. This is minimal but not empty.

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 a specific verb (enable) and resource (dangerous write operations) with concrete examples (delete, structural changes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enable_writes, which likely handles normal writes, and delete_element, which is a specific operation. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (when dangerous operations are needed) but does not explicitly contrast it with enable_writes or disable_writes. It mentions the secret requirement as a condition but offers no exclusions or alternative routing. An agent would need to infer the boundary from the name and examples.

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