gmail_enable_cse_keypair

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the main effect (restores signing and decryption) but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., key pair must be disabled), error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. Basic transparency is present but could be more comprehensive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 12 words with no waste. It efficiently communicates the core action and effect.

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 tool, the description is largely complete. It states the action and effect. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., key pair must be disabled) and return values, but given the simplicity, it is still adequate.

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 schema coverage is 100% (one parameter fully described). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's description 'The key pair ID to enable'. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, and no extra semantics are provided.

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 clearly states the action 'Enable a previously disabled CSE key pair' and the effect 'restores signing and decryption'. It uses a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like gmail_disable_cse_keypair and gmail_obliterate_cse_keypair.

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 it should be used when a key pair is disabled and you want to re-enable it, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. The sibling naming provides some context, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidelines.

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