Enable tool group

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it never calls OpenProject, it returns a specific status object, it triggers tools/list_changed and requires re-reading the tool list, and its effect is limited to this session with no impact on other sessions. These details are not inferable from the annotations.

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 organized into short, front-loaded paragraphs: the core action and use case come first, then return behavior, then pitfalls, then a cross-reference. Every sentence carries distinct information, and nothing is redundant with the annotations or schema.

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 description fully covers purpose, invocation conditions, side effects, return shape, failure modes, and scoping constraints. Even though an output schema exists, the description goes beyond it by explaining what the status values mean and by telling the agent to refresh its tool list. There are no missing pieces needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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% and the parameter description already lists all valid group values. The description adds extra selection guidance by naming which groups are hidden under the core profile and explaining that 'meetings' includes recurring-meeting tools, which helps the agent choose the correct group value. This is a meaningful but modest addition on top of the schema.

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 precise action ('re-enable a tool group hidden by OPENPROJECT_MCP_PROFILE=core') and names the exact resource and scope. It also distinguishes itself from ordinary OpenProject tools by noting 'It never calls OpenProject,' so an agent can tell this is a session-level meta tool rather than a project data operation.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('Use it when the user needs meetings, wiki, news... and those tools are not in your list') and enumerates clear exclusions and failure cases: it cannot override read-only mode, the admin gate, or groups removed with OPENPROJECT_MCP_DISABLE. It also cross-references get_instance_info as an alternative diagnostic, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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