enable_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: idempotency is stated, return behavior is disclosed ('reports tokens added'), the reversal path is given ('disable_tools reverses it'), and per-pack token costs are listed. No contradictions with annotations exist since none are provided.

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, but every section earns its place: action+context first, then idempotency, then the decision-critical task map, then the pack catalog with costs. The pack details are dense rather than padded; only minor trimming of capability sub-lists would tighten it further.

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 no-annotation tool with 7 packs and dynamic session behavior, this is nearly complete: valid values, costs, idempotency, and reversal are all covered. Minor gaps remain — error behavior for invalid pack names and explicit confirmation that multiple packs can be combined in one call — but nothing that would block correct invocation.

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 the schema only says `packs` is an array of strings. The description fully compensates by enumerating every valid pack name, listing capabilities per pack, and specifying the special `['everything']` value. An agent knows exactly what strings to pass.

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 optional tool packs mid-session (sessions start lite).' The description clearly distinguishes this from the sibling `disable_tools` by explicitly naming it as the reverse operation, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context ('sessions start lite') and a task map that routes specific jobs to specific packs (e.g., 'citations -> references; document merge -> assembly'). It also names the alternative (`disable_tools`) and the 'everything' catch-all, leaving no ambiguity about which pack to enable for a given task.

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