enable_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure and does so strongly: it states the client is notified to re-fetch the tool list, reports token cost and active surface, is idempotent, and is reversed by disable_tools. These are nontrivial behavioral traits an agent needs to know.

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 long due to the necessary enumeration of pack contents, but it is front-loaded with the purpose and each pack list is dense rather than padded. Slightly verbose, yet every section serves the selection task.

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 tool with no annotations, one parameter, and no schema coverage, this is complete: it defines the parameter domain, effects, idempotence, output reporting, and reversal path. An agent can invoke it correctly without needing sibling schemas.

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 coverage is 0% and there are no enums, so the description fully compensates by enumerating every valid pack name and its capabilities. It also implies the exact quoted strings to use for the packs parameter, adding meaning the schema lacks entirely.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Switch on optional tool packs mid-session,' which clearly identifies the operation and object. It is distinguishable from siblings because it explicitly references enabling optional capabilities and mentions disable_tools as the reverse operation.

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 gives clear context for when enabling is appropriate: mid-session when optional packs are needed, and notes that disable_tools reverses the operation. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use conditions, but no alternative enabling tool exists and the reverse tool is called out.

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