Return a SolarWinds Orion node to managed state by lifting its unmanage status, restoring normal monitoring and alerting for that node.
[WRITE][risk=medium] Return a node to managed state (lift unmanage).
Args: node_id: Numeric Orion NodeID. target: SolarWinds target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| node_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The '[WRITE]' tag restates readOnlyHint=false and '[risk=medium]' adds mild context beyond destructiveHint=true, but the description does not explain what state actually changes, whether the call is safe to repeat (annotations say idempotentHint=false, which for a 'return to managed' operation deserves explanation), or what auth/config is required. Given the annotations already carry the safety profile, this is minimal added value rather than a gap-filling description.
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 tag prefix front-loads the operation class and risk, then the Arg list is terse and targeted. Slightly terse overall, but no wasted sentences.
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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations give an agent enough to invoke it correctly: action, inverse operation, and both parameters. It omits return/confirmation behavior and error cases for nodes that are not currently unmanaged, which is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.
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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: node_id is identified as the numeric Orion NodeID and target is explained as the SolarWinds config target name with an explicit 'omit for the default' default-behavior note that the schema itself does not state. It stops short of format examples or how the target name maps to config entries.
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 and resource ('Return a node to managed state') and immediately clarifies with '(lift unmanage)', which pins it as the exact inverse of the sibling tool unmanage_node. An agent can pick between remanage_node and unmanage_node without opening either schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: the inverse framing of 'lift unmanage' tells an agent this is for restoring monitoring, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no precondition (e.g., node must currently be unmanaged), and no pointer to unmanage_node/list_unmanaged as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.