enable_sql_pools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds some useful context: admin role requirement, beta API warning, and the behavioral guarantee that pool definitions are not modified. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, reversibility, or what happens if SQL pools are 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 at three sentences, each earning its place: the core function, the access requirement, and the beta warning. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Minor improvement could be made by more explicit off-ramps to siblings.

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?

The tool has a simple single-parameter schema and an output schema to explain return values, so complexity is low. Still, the description omits whether this is a one-time enablement, whether it affects existing SQL pools, or how to check current status (even though get_sql_pools_status is a sibling). It is minimally adequate but leaves operational context unclear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'workspace' parameter. It only repeats 'for a workspace' without specifying whether the value is a workspace ID, name, or URL, and without any additional format or usage guidance. The single parameter remains under-specified.

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: 'Enable custom SQL Pools for a workspace.' The clarifying phrase 'without modifying pool definitions' sets it apart from create/update/delete SQL pool siblings, so an agent can distinguish it from those tools. It does not explicitly mention the corresponding disable_sql_pools sibling, but the action is clearly scoped.

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 prerequisites: workspace admin role and beta/preview API status. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, though 'without modifying pool definitions' implies its scope relative to pool definition mutation. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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