enable_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the admin_write permission requirement, which is useful, but it omits details about side effects, reversibility, failure behavior for already-enabled workspaces, and return values.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the permission requirement is stated in a second concise sentence.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin for a mutation tool. It does not explain the profile parameter, the outcome/return value, or conditions that affect the call, so an agent may not be fully equipped to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (workspace_name or profile). The schema only provides names and types, so the agent gets no additional semantic guidance for correctly populating these parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Enable') and resource ('disabled Survey Solutions workspace'), clearly distinguishing this action from related workspace tools like create_workspace, disable_workspace, and delete_workspace. The object of the action is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'disabled workspace' implies the tool should be used when a workspace is disabled, and 'Requires admin_write permission' gives a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as disable_workspace or update_workspace.

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