enable-rule

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool turns on an existing rule and returns a confirmation. It stops short of covering idempotency (e.g., enabling an already-enabled rule) or error scenarios, but for this simple operation, the core behavior and outcome are clear.

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 compact, using a clear 'Use when' / 'Do not use when' structure. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return value, exclusions, and a useful hint about list-rules.

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 tool with a single simple parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to verify the parameter. Sibling references further complete the contextual picture.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'name' parameter is the rule's exact name through 'turning on an existing Mail rule by name' and 'confirm the exact rule name.' This adds meaningful semantic detail beyond the raw schema.

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's function: 'turning on an existing Mail rule by name.' This uses a specific verb (turning on) and resource (existing Mail rule), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like disable-rule, create-rule, and delete-rule.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, naming alternatives for opposite or related operations. Also advises using list-rules to verify the exact rule name, which is actionable context for correct invocation.

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