remanage_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and opens with '[WRITE][risk=medium]', disclosing that this is a mutating operation with medium risk. It covers the core behavioral trait but does not detail side effects, permission requirements, or response behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: a risk marker, a one-sentence purpose, and a short Args list. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields, and every sentence earns its place.

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 two-argument operation with no output schema, the description provides purpose, parameter semantics, and risk level. It omits output or error details, but given the tool's simplicity this is not a serious gap.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: node_id is a 'Numeric Orion NodeID' and target is a 'SolarWinds target name from config; omit for the default.' This is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return a node to managed state (lift unmanage).' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from the sibling unmanage_node, making the tool's intent unambiguous.

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 phrase 'lift unmanage' provides clear context for when to use this tool: after a node has been placed in an unmanaged state. It does not explicitly name unmanage_node as the opposite operation or state when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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