crystal_extension_manage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not disclose whether the change is persisted, how long it takes effect, whether disabling stops a running extension, what permissions are required, or how to revert — only the bare enable/disable intent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no repetition. It is arguably terse given the absence of annotations, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never explains outcomes, error conditions, or scope interactions (e.g. what happens if both cave and crystal_id are supplied). The schema covers parameter names but not behavior.

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 meaning of cave, action, crystal_id, and extension_id is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'Cave or Crystal scope' reinforces but does not extend that, warranting the baseline 3.

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 pair (enable/disable) and resource (extension) plus the two supported scopes, which cleanly separates it from siblings like crystal_extension_list, _run, and _call. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (toggling an extension's state), but offers no guidance on choosing cave scope versus crystal scope, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternatives for listing or invoking extensions. Usage must be inferred from the sibling names.

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