enable_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses idempotency, token reporting, policy-based refusal, and per-pack token costs. For the com pack it explicitly states that it drives a private hidden Excel instance and never touches the open Excel session, which is critical safety-relevant behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations because none are present.

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 part earns its place: a core behavior sentence, a refusal condition, a task map, and structured pack details. It is front-loaded with the main behavior before diving into the pack catalog, and none of it merely repeats schema information.

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 one unconstrained array parameter and no enums, the description supplies the complete vocabulary of valid values, their meanings, their costs, and their behavioral implications. It also covers reversibility, policy limitations, and side-effect isolation. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail the return payload, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema only declares an array of strings with 0% description coverage, so the description must define the valid values—and it does by naming design, io, com, and ['everything']. It goes further by enumerating the exact features enabled by each pack, which the schema alone would never convey. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: enabling optional tool packs mid-session, and immediately explains that sessions start lite, which makes the tool's role concrete. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling disable_tools by naming the reverse operation, and the pack/task mapping makes the scope explicit.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool (mid-session, after a lite start) and names disable_tools as the reversal alternative. It also gives a clear exclusion condition by stating it refuses under KS4XL_PACK_POLICY=locked. The task map tells an agent which pack to select for specific feature groups, providing strong routing guidance.

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