isolate_host

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the mechanism ('restricting network access'), implementation options (NAC, endpoint security, SDN/firewall), and isolation levels ('full', 'partial', 'monitoring'). It also discloses that duration 0 means manual removal, providing useful operational behavior. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or impact on existing connections, which would make it fully transparent.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the purpose, then briefly explains the mechanism, followed by a clear Args list and a Returns statement. There is minimal redundancy, and every sentence contributes useful 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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return type adequately for a 4-parameter tool. It lacks explicit usage exclusions or safety warnings, but the isolation levels and duration behavior provide sufficient operational context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values beyond what is given.

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, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter. It defines hostname as 'Hostname or IP', isolation_level with its enum-like values, reason, and duration_hours including the special '0 = manual removal' meaning. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the bare schema fields.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Isolate a compromised host from the network.' It then reinforces the purpose with 'Quarantines a host by restricting its network access.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like block_ip_address, which blocks a specific IP rather than isolating a host.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'compromised host,' telling the agent when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as differentiating from block_ip_address or other network-level tools. Despite that, the context is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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