enable_agent

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

readOnlyHint=false already tells the agent this is a mutation, so the description needn't restate that. It does add real context annotations do not carry: the operation requires ADMIN privileges. It says nothing about reversibility or what state change occurs on the agent, leaving that gap.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the scoping/privilege note is front-loaded. Efficiency is high, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than polished 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?

For a simple one-parameter toggle with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits what enabling actually does, error behavior for unknown agents, and the relationship to disable_agent, so it is not fully complete.

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% for the single agent_name parameter, but the name itself is self-describing. The description implies the parameter identifies the target agent but adds no format, ID-vs-name, or existence requirements beyond what the schema shows.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Enable an agent'. The sibling set contains disable_agent, so the operation's polarity is unambiguous. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from that sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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 '(ADMIN)' marker signals a permission precondition, which is useful, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus disable_agent or how it relates to task/claim workflows. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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