Search Api Server Enable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the server must exist first, whether enabling triggers reindexing of associated indexes, whether the operation is idempotent, or what permissions are required. For a state-changing operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is also the entire definition, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the definition omits prerequisite state, the effect of enabling on indexes, and the format of the sole required argument. For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% param coverage, this is incomplete.

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 0% for the single required parameter server_id, and the description adds no meaning — it never clarifies whether server_id is a machine name, a numeric ID, or a UUID, nor how to obtain it (e.g. via search_api_server_list). The one parameter the agent must supply is effectively undocumented.

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 specific verb ('Enable') and resource ('Search API server'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to differentiate itself from the very similar sibling search_api_server_disable or to explain its relationship to search_api_server_list/get/create.

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 gives no guidance on when to enable a server, what precondition (e.g. server must already exist and be configured) applies, or how it relates to the sibling disable tool. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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