enable_entity

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that only the ad_group branch is live-verified while others are not, which is useful transparency about reliability. However, it does not explain what 'draft' means (whether changes are applied immediately or queued), any permission requirements, or reversibility. The mention of 'Same shape as pause_entity' hints at non-destructive behavior but is not explicit.

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 concise, with two sentences and a brief status note. It front-loads the primary purpose. No redundant or filler content. However, the structure could be improved by separating the purpose from the verification details, but it remains efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations (see parameter_semantics), does not describe expected outcome or return value, and gives no prerequisites or side-effect warnings. The verification status note adds some context, but overall it fails to equip an agent to call the tool correctly across all entity branches.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to entity_type, entity_id, or parent_id. It does not explain their roles or acceptable values. The reference to pause_entity does not help an agent understand parameter semantics. This is a significant gap given all parameters are 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Draft an enable (Status=Active)' – a specific verb with a target status. It also references 'Same shape as pause_entity' to help distinguish it from the sibling pause_entity. However, it does not enumerate all supported entity types upfront (they appear only in the verification note), which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The reference to pause_entity describes structural similarity, not usage context. There is no mention of when an enable is appropriate (e.g., reactivating a paused entity) or how it differs from update_* tools. The guidance is minimal and implicit.

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