enable_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and reveals a critical behavioral trait: the pre-flight GET is eventually consistent and may silently revert recent changes. This is valuable transparency. However, it does not mention idempotency or behavior when audit is already enabled.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement, a caution note, and parameter explanations. It is well-structured and front-loaded. The caution is somewhat lengthy but necessary for transparency.

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 there is an output schema (not provided), the description does not need to cover return values. However, it omits prerequisites like required permissions or warehouse existence. The caution about eventual consistency is helpful but the description lacks information about error states or idempotency.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description includes an Args block that explains each parameter beyond the schema's property titles. It clarifies the meaning of workspace, warehouse, and retention_days with range and default, adding significant semantics.

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 tool enables SQL auditing on a warehouse or SQL analytics endpoint. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'disable_audit' and 'set_audit_retention'.

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 provides a caution about spacing writes due to eventual consistency, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'set_audit_retention' or 'add_audit_group'. The caution implies some usage advice but not comprehensive guidance.

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