apm_enable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does explicitly label the operation as 'write' and notes that it 'requires confirmation,' which gives useful safety context. However, it does not explain side effects, reversibility, authorization requirements, or the confirmation flow.

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 very short and free of filler, but it omits essential invocation details. This reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, since the agent still lacks enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. The agent can infer the high-level action but cannot determine how to supply confirmation parameters or what a successful invocation requires, so it barely crosses the minimum viable threshold.

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 three undocumented parameters. The phrase 'requires confirmation' hints at why confirm_token and confirmation_id exist, but it does not explain user_code or clarify how the parameters relate to a real invocation.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Enable AP management.' This is a specific, actionable purpose and is distinguishable from the sibling 'apm_disable' by the enable/disable direction, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like apm_disable or apm_show, nor about prerequisites such as how to obtain user_code, confirm_token, or confirmation_id. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.

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