enable-rule

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a confirmation and does not have annotations, so it carries the full burden. However, it does not describe what happens if the rule is already enabled, whether the operation is idempotent, or any potential side effects. Basic behavior is covered, but edge cases are missing.

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 concise, consisting of three brief sentences. It front-loads the purpose and returns, then immediately provides usage boundaries. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, with no redundant information.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, return value, and usage boundaries. It could mention idempotency or what happens if the rule does not exist, but overall it is adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must add meaning for the 'name' parameter. The description indicates that the parameter is the rule name and advises using list-rules to confirm the exact name, providing valuable guidance. However, it does not specify format, case sensitivity, or validation beyond the schema's minLength.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'turning on an existing Mail rule by name.' It clearly identifies the action (enable), the resource (Mail rule), and the required input (name). This differentiates it effectively from sibling tools like disable-rule, create-rule, and 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use when: turning on an existing Mail rule by name'), when not to use it ('Do not use when: turning a rule off, creating one, or deleting one'), and suggests an alternative tool (list-rules) to confirm the exact rule name. This leaves no ambiguity for the agent.

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