extension_set_enabled

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently notes 'Chrome may require a user gesture/confirmation,' a non-obvious behavioral trait. However, it does not cover outcomes, failure modes, or whether the change is persistent.

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 concise sentences, both earning their place. The core purpose is front-loaded and the important user-gesture warning follows immediately. No fluff.

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 simple two-parameter setter, the description covers the central action and a key environmental constraint, but lacks fallback behavior, return/error details, and any instruction on obtaining the extension ID. Given no annotations or output schema, this leaves moderate gaps.

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?

The 0% schema description coverage means the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'enabled' maps to the enable/disable action and 'id' refers to an installed extension, but provides no further detail about where the ID comes from or the exact semantics of true/false.

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 the specific verb 'Enable or disable' with the resource 'installed extension'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, or uninstall extensions. The user-gesture caveat reinforces its purpose.

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 usage through its verb phrase ('Enable or disable') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention a prerequisite like obtaining the extension ID via extensions_list. No exclusions are provided.

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