enable_automation_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Enable') but doesn't describe what enabling entails (e.g., whether it activates the rule immediately, requires permissions, has side effects like notifications, or what happens if the rule is already enabled). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and implications.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies system state, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it safely and effectively.

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 input schema has one parameter ('ruleId') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying that 'ruleId' identifies the rule to enable. It doesn't explain the format of 'ruleId' (e.g., numeric ID, UUID, name) or where to find it. With low schema coverage, the description compensates minimally, resulting in a baseline score.

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 the action ('Enable') and the target resource ('a disabled automation rule'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'disable_automation_rule' and 'create_automation_rule' by focusing on enabling existing disabled rules rather than creating new ones or disabling them. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_automation_rule' which might also modify rule states.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the rule must exist and be disabled), when not to use it, or direct alternatives like 'update_automation_rule' for state changes. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit context.

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