Both tools have empty input schemas (parameters: {}) and minimal descriptions (12-18 chars). No parameter documentation, no output schema documentation, no error handling guidance. Tools appear to be proof-of-concept for dynamic tool registration rather than production-grade implementations. Naming is acceptable (verb_noun pattern) but descriptions are far below the 10-1024 char baseline (194 char average for A+ tools). No validation, no recovery guidance, no security considerations.

• Expand descriptions to 50-150 characters explaining WHAT each tool does, WHEN to use it, and WHAT it returns. Example: 'Switch to advanced tool set. Call this to unlock premium features like batch operations and advanced filtering. Returns: {status: "success", available_tools: [...]}'
• Add explicit input schema with type definitions and descriptions, even if currently empty. Example: {"type": "object", "properties": {}, "required": []} with a description explaining why no parameters are needed.
• Document the output schema in the tool description or as a separate field. Specify what fields the response contains (e.g., status, available_tools, timestamp).
• Add error handling: return structured errors with actionable guidance. Example: {"error": "Tool set already enabled", "suggestion": "Call enable_basic_tools to switch back"} instead of bare success/failure.
• Clarify in descriptions that these are write operations with side effects. Example: 'Permanently switches the active tool set for this session. This affects all subsequent tool calls.'