Enable product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the required OAuth scope (edit_products) and the mandatory per-call confirmation, both of which the annotations do not convey.

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 and then the endpoint, scope, and confirmation constraint in descending order of importance. No filler, though the opening 'Enable product' duplicates the tool title and could have been merged into the more informative second clause.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus rich annotations cover the action, the required permission scope, and the confirmation gate. The main omission is any statement of what enabling actually changes on the product or how it relates to disable_product, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 account, confirm, and product_id are all documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's 'Requires explicit per-call confirmation' mildly reinforces the confirm parameter's purpose but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the 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 states a clear verb+resource ('Enable product') and grounds it in the underlying native endpoint PUT /products/:id/enable, so an agent knows exactly what operation runs. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling operations such as enable_license or the inverse disable_product, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and reinforced by the stated prerequisite scope (edit_products) and the explicit per-call confirmation requirement. No alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is given, so an agent must infer that this is the inverse of disable_product rather than being told.

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