iterm2_enable_api

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 discloses that a restart is required after enabling, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether this changes preferences persistently, whether it requires the tool to be idempotent, or what happens if already enabled. For a configuration/mutation tool with zero annotations, more disclosure would be valuable, but the restart note does add meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first states the purpose, the second adds a critical behavioral caveat. No filler or redundancy. Very efficient for what it communicates.

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 zero-parameter configuration tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and a key side effect (restart required). However, it could be more complete regarding what 'enabling the API' unlocks, why a user would want this, whether it's reversible, or what error conditions might arise. Given zero siblings conceptually overlap, the completeness is adequate but not rich.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no params). With no parameters, there is nothing for the description to add semantically. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly adds no param noise. This is appropriate.

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 action clearly: 'Enable the iTerm2 Python API in preferences.' It has a specific verb (enable) + resource (iTerm2 Python API) + location (in preferences). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tools, but the siblings are all about pane control or status, so the purpose is reasonably distinct in context.

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 setup context by noting 'Note: iTerm2 must be restarted after enabling.' However, it doesn't state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites like whether iTerm2 is already running or whether this is a one-time setup step. The restart note gives some context for expected behavior after invocation but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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