mod_enable

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context about consequences, reversibility, or how enabling affects the modifier stack. It essentially restates the operation without illuminating its 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?

The description is extremely compact and front-loaded: it states the action and target in one short sentence. The bilingual repetition is minor and does not hurt usability.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any mention of how this relates to modifier enablement lifecycle or sibling tools, and it does not explain expected state changes beyond 'make effective'.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description does not add extra meaning about modifier resolution or object selection behavior, which is acceptable since the schema carries the burden.

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 identifies the action (Enable) and the resource (the named modifier), and adds the clarifying gloss 'make effective'. It does not explicitly differentiate from mod_disable or mod_remove, but the verb and resource are specific enough for basic identification.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus mod_disable, mod_remove, or mod_add. It also does not mention prerequisites such as the object having a modifier stack or the effect of omitting 'objects' beyond what the schema already states.

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