Host Management

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on the destructive nature (e.g., removing hosts permanently) or other behavioral traits like authentication requirements or system changes. It adds no value beyond the annotations.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks critical information such as the available actions or the fact that it modifies local configuration. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but incomplete for the complexity of 8 parameters.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, a required 'action' parameter, and a destructive annotation, the description is too minimal. It does not mention the three actions (list, add, remove) or the potential impacts. Even with an output schema, the description fails to provide essential operational context.

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 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description ('Manage...') does not add any additional meaning or context about how parameters relate. The baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Manage the local host alias inventory,' which identifies the resource but uses the vague verb 'manage.' It does not specify the actions (list, add, remove) or how the tool operates. The title 'Host Management' provides context, but the description alone is insufficient to clearly distinguish the tool's specific function from siblings like tm_inventory.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tm_remote or tunnel_ingest_hosts. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action parameter and sibling names.

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