amt_enable

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete effects: opening specific ports (16994, 5900), setting an RFB password, and the 'consent_off' option that disables the on-screen user-consent prompt (called a 'surveillance escalation'). It also mentions gating and approval requirements, adding rich behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint true matches 'CONFIG MUTATION').

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 front-loaded with a clear summary sentence, then uses structured details for each feature. Every sentence adds value: port numbers, gates, security implications, and operator-gate reference. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the main behavior, side effects, and special authorization needs, which is substantial given the tool's complexity. However, there is no return value info (no output schema) and the 'confirm' and 'profile' parameters are not explained, leaving minor gaps for an agent to fully predict invocation outcomes.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the key parameters: feature='sol' and feature='kvm' and their port implications, and consent_off=true as KVM-only with operator-gate requirement. However, it does not explain the 'confirm' or 'profile' parameters, leaving some ambiguity for those.

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 ('Enable') and resource ('Intel AMT redirection listener over WS-Man'), with clear scope ('Intel AMT/vPro only'). It distinguishes between the 'sol' and 'kvm' feature modes, making the tool's purpose unambiguous relative to sibling tools.

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 gives context about when the tool applies (Intel AMT/vPro only) and explains the two feature modes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool is named as an alternative. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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