enable_redirection_host

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It merely states 'Enable' which implies a state change, but it does not describe any side effects, required permissions, or what happens after enabling. The lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's impact.

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 sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary context for brevity. While not verbose, it is borderline under-specified, warranting a slightly above-average score for structure without penalty for missing content.

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's mutation nature (state change) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It should explain what enabling entails, whether the host must exist, and possible failure modes. The minimal text does not provide a complete mental model for the agent.

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 provides a description for the single parameter 'host_id' (coverage 100%). The tool description adds no further meaning or context beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 'Enable a redirection host' clearly conveys the action and resource, but it essentially restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling 'enable' tools for other host types (e.g., enable_dead_host, enable_proxy_host), making it only slightly better than a tautology.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as enabling other host types or disabling a redirection host. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the host must exist in a disabled state) or context for its invocation.

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