datto_edr_restore_host

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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: a '⚠ HIGH-IMPACT' severity framing and the fact that execution runs an EDR response extension on the endpoint, plus the confirm gate. It stops short of describing what happens to the host's connectivity or whether the action is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences with the impact warning front-loaded and the execution precondition last. Nothing is wasted and the agent can act on it immediately.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, severity and the confirmation gate. It could say more about the effect on the target host (e.g., network access restored, agent reconnect timing), but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters including the confirm dry-run behavior are already fully documented. The description only restates the confirm requirement, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Remove network isolation from one host') and names the mechanism ('Host Isolation Restore' response extension). This clearly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling datto_edr_isolate_host and from the generic datto_edr_run_response.

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 implied — restore isolation on a host that was previously isolated — but the description never names datto_edr_isolate_host as the counterpart or says when to prefer this over calling datto_edr_run_response directly with the extension. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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