Enable project

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

The description discloses side effects ('writes the project's approval to the local OpenReflex home'), idempotence ('enabling an already enabled project changes nothing'), non-destructiveness ('Touches no project files'), and errors ('none'). These details go well beyond the annotations, which only state idempotentHint and destructiveHint.

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 well-organized with labeled sections (Returns, Use when, Never, Not for, Side effects, Errors) and every sentence carries useful information. The most important usage constraint is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 single optional parameter with an output schema, the description covers the return value, invocation conditions, exclusions, side effects, idempotence, and error behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents `confirm` clearly with its default and meaning. The description adds the return behavior tied to `confirm=false`, but does not add substantial parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Enable OpenReflex capture for this project.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_execution_context or record_outcome, so an agent can tell what this tool is for at a glance.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('the user explicitly asks to enable OpenReflex here'), when not to call it ('Never call it on your own initiative'), and names the CLI alternatives `openreflex approve` and `openreflex revoke`. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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