set_interface_enabled

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses a specific and critical behavioral consequence: disabling the interface used to reach the router will cut the connection and cannot be undone remotely. This is valuable, concrete context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 extremely efficient: one sentence states the purpose, and a second sentence delivers the critical warning. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 low complexity, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral risk. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating the true/false mapping and how to obtain the interface_id, but the schema and warning together make the tool safely usable.

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 only 50%, and the enabled parameter is otherwise undocumented, but the description's "up or down" gives it meaningful semantic context. The interface_id parameter is already well described in the schema with its source and example, so the description compensates for the main gap.

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 and resource: "Bring an interface up or down." This directly and unambiguously identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_interfaces or set_firewall_rule_enabled.

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 implies when the tool is used by saying it toggles interface state, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. The warning about cutting the management connection provides important context, and the schema points to list_interfaces, but the description itself gives no explicit usage guidance.

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