enable_sender

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions immediate activation and setting master_enable=true, but does not address side effects, reversibility, authorization needs, or any other behavioral characteristics. Critical information is missing.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that conveys the core purpose. However, it is slightly too brief, omitting needed details for the few dimensions it covers.

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 parameter minimalism and absence of behavioral details, the description is insufficient for confident tool selection and invocation, despite the presence of an output schema. It fails to provide enough context beyond the basic action.

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?

There is only one parameter (sender_id), but with 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain its meaning. It does not, assuming the agent knows what a sender ID is. This lack of semantic detail hampers correct invocation.

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 a sender), the target resource (Sender), and the effect (master_enable=true, transmits, immediate activation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like disable_sender.

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 that the tool is used to activate a sender, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., stage_sender) or any prerequisites. The context from sibling names offers some clarity, but the description itself lacks direct usage advice.

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