Network Ssh Switch

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does explicitly label the call as a write operation — the single most important behavioral fact here. However, it omits auth/permission requirements, whether the change persists across reboots, and the risk that disabling SSH can sever the very remote session being used.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the operation class is front-loaded. It borders on under-specification for a risky mutation, but as pure structure it is efficient.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the definition is too thin: no permissions, no reversibility or persistence notes, and no explanation of what enable=true/false actually changes. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the pre-call context an agent needs before toggling SSH 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 80%, so four of five parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond that. The one undescribed parameter (enable) is only obliquely covered by the phrase 'enable or disable'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

States a specific verb pair (enable/disable) and resource (SSH service), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not name the obvious sibling network_ssh_status or otherwise differentiate itself from it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions the read-only alternative network_ssh_status. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the 'write operation' tag.

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