enable-rule

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description mentions the return value ('a confirmation that the rule was enabled'), which is a key behavioral trait. It does not discuss permissions or side effects, but for a simple enable action, this is adequate.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the use case, then states the return value, and ends with exclusions and recommendations. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the single parameter, no annotations, and an output schema for return format, the description is complete. It covers when to use, what to expect, and sibling tools, providing all necessary context for correct tool selection.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'name'. The description compensates by stating the rule is turned on 'by name', implying the parameter is the rule's name. This adds meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the action: 'turning on an existing Mail rule by name.' It uses a specific verb ('enable') and resource ('Mail rule'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like disable-rule, create-rule, delete-rule.

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 ('turning on an existing Mail rule by name'), when not to use ('turning a rule off, creating one, deleting one'), and provides alternatives (disable-rule, create-rule, delete-rule) plus a suggestion to use list-rules for confirmation.

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