datto_edr_isolate_host

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true) by explaining exactly what connectivity is lost versus preserved ('keeps talking to Datto EDR but loses all other network access') and how isolation ends. It also discloses the dry-run behavior of omitting confirm, which the annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the impact warning, then the effect, then the precondition. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 destructive, open-world action with no output schema, the description covers impact, blast radius, supported platforms, and the confirmation gate, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It stops short of stating permission requirements or how long isolation persists before an agent should verify restoration.

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 100%, so the schema already explains target, target_group_id, and the confirm gate. The description reinforces the confirm requirement and cross-references datto_edr_target_groups_list for the group id, but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Network-isolate one host') plus the mechanism used ('Host Isolation' response extension), so the agent knows exactly what will happen. The scope ('one host') and the 'until restored' clause implicitly distinguish it from datto_edr_restore_host among the siblings.

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?

Clear context for use: it is flagged HIGH-IMPACT and gated on 'confirm: true', which tells the agent this is a deliberate, escalation-level action. It hints at the reversal path ('until restored') but never explicitly names datto_edr_restore_host as the alternative to use when un-isolating, so there is no hard exclusion rule.

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