manage_extensions

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds nothing to that picture — it never says disabling may disrupt the running app, whether changes persist across restarts, or that only the enable/disable branches are destructive while list is a safe read. The description is consistent with annotations but contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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 no filler. It is efficient but arguably too terse for a tool that bundles a safe read action with a destructive mutation action.

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?

An output schema covers return values, but for a tool annotated destructive the description should at minimum say which branch is destructive and what the consequences of disabling are. With zero required parameters and three distinct modes, the description leaves the agent to infer too much.

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%, and each parameter carries its own description, so the schema already does the work. The description mentions the three actions but does not link them to extension_id or explain that search/enabled_only only apply to the list action. Baseline 3 applies.

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 three specific verbs (list, enable, disable) against a specific resource (the Kit app's extensions), which is enough to separate it from every sibling tool, none of which touch extensions. It stops short of 5 because it never clarifies what an 'extension' means in this context or what the tool returns.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick each action, no mention that enable/disable require extension_id while list does not, and no indication of risk or prerequisites. The implied usage is only that the tool exists.

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