tool_enable

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Activate' but does not explain what activation entails, side effects, or prerequisites. The contradiction with the input schema (required parameter versus optional in description) raises concerns, leading to a score of 2.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and includes a quick reference for an alternative usage. It is front-loaded and concise with no redundant words, earning a 5.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what 'activate' means, the result of enabling a tool, and the format of the list. It fails to provide sufficient detail for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and return value, so score is 2.

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 100%, but the description adds that calling without arguments lists tools, implying the parameter is optional. However, the schema marks tool_name as required, creating a contradiction. This addition is useful but conflicting, so score is 2.

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 the tool activates specific tool types (map, extract, parse, etc.) and can list all available tools when called without arguments. This clearly conveys the primary function and a secondary listing capability, earning a 4 for clear verb and resource description.

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 usage for enabling tools and listing them, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_disable. No exclusions or context for decision-making are provided, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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