cortex_enable_responder

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a mutation ('Enable') but does not discuss reversibility, required permissions, failure modes, or asynchronous behavior. The description lacks important safety and side-effect context.

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 sentences, efficient and front-loaded. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite 4 parameters and no output schema, the description does not mention return values, status of the operation, or error conditions. Lacks context about what happens after enabling (e.g., responder becomes available for execution).

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds 'Provide configuration values for any required fields', which slightly reinforces the purpose of the configuration parameter but does not add new meaning.

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 resource ('a responder definition') with context ('in the current organization'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cortex_disable_responder' and 'cortex_enable_analyzer', but could be more specific about enabling previously disabled responders.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to enable vs. run a responder). Does not mention prerequisites like listing definitions first or checking configuration requirements via cortex_list_responder_definitions.

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