enable_computer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the real-world effect (domain authentication is restored, the computer trust relationship is restored), which is valuable beyond a bare "enable" statement. However, it omits required permissions, behavior if the account is already enabled, and whether the change is reversible or audited.

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 core statement is front-loaded in the first two sentences and nothing is redundant. The example block is useful but takes extra vertical space for a one-parameter tool, keeping it just shy of a 5.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and effect adequately, but an agent still lacks error/failure context (unknown account, already-enabled account) and permission prerequisites, which matter for a state-changing directory operation.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The example call (computer_name="DESKTOP-ABC123") conveys the expected name format, which is a small addition over the schema's "Computer name to enable", but no constraints (length, FQDN vs short name, case) are stated.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Enable a computer account") and adds the effect ("Activates disabled computer account allowing domain authentication"), so the operation is unmistakable. It does not name the obvious counterpart disable_computer, but the verb/resource pairing is distinct enough from siblings like modify_computer or reset_computer_password.

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 phrase "Activates disabled computer account" implies the condition under which to use it (the account is currently disabled), but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of disable_computer as the inverse, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or that the account must exist.

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