Enable license

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds concrete value beyond annotations: the scope requirement (edit_products) and the explicit per-call confirmation requirement. It does not contradict annotations (it is a mutation, matching readOnlyHint=false). Missing details on what exactly gets enabled or side effects.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action, then scope, then constraint. No filler sentences; every phrase (endpoint, scope, confirmation) carries operational weight.

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?

Covers the key agent needs: what it does, required scope, and the confirmation gate. No output schema exists, but a simple enable action likely returns a status that the agent can infer. Minor gap: no explicit statement of state change effect or error conditions.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly (including copying product_id from the Content tab). The description adds nothing new about parameters beyond the confirmation requirement, which is also reflected in the confirm field. Baseline 3 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Enable license') and adds the underlying native endpoint (PUT /licenses/enable). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling disable_license or enable_product, but the verb+resource is specific enough for an agent to distinguish this from related license tools.

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 'Requires explicit per-call confirmation' note implies when to use it (only on explicit user request), which is reinforced by the confirm parameter. However, no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternative routing (e.g., vs disable_license) is given.

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