Enable tool group

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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already declaring safety, the description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: it never calls OpenProject, it returns a specific object, it triggers tools/list_changed so the agent must re-read its tool list, and it fails with invalid_input for operator-removed groups. The 'already_visible' status is consistent with idempotentHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and trigger, then cleanly separated into returns, side effects, and pitfalls. Dense but nearly every clause carries operational information; the group list in both description and schema is mildly redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still names the returned fields and status values, and it covers session scope, side effects, and failure modes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and recover from this tool is missing.

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 schema description already enumerates the accepted group tags and which are hidden under the core profile, including the 'meetings includes recurring' note. The description restates but adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond that, so the baseline 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+resource ('Re-enable a tool group hidden by OPENPROJECT_MCP_PROFILE=core') with scope limited to the session, which no sibling tool covers. An agent can distinguish it from the listing/permission siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('when the user needs meetings, wiki, news, documents, budgets, git activity or reporting and those tools are not in your list') plus exclusions (cannot override read-only mode, admin gate, operator-disabled groups). It also cross-references get_instance_info for capability discovery.

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