termix_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that delete requires a typed confirm phrase of the form "DELETE /host/db/host/<id>", that add/update require confirm=true, and that passwords/keys are redacted from all output and must be set via the web UI. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what a partial update does to unlisted fields.

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?

Content is front-loaded (purpose first, then action list, then parameter requirements, then the secret caveat) and each block earns its place. The layout is a bit list-heavy for prose but is well organized and free of filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the destructive-confirmation protocol and secret redaction that an agent must know before calling. The remaining shortfall is that `data` field names are external, forcing an extra discovery call or README lookup before add/update can be used correctly.

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 0%, so the schema provides no title-level detail worth crediting; the description compensates by enumerating action semantics, per-action host_id use, the confirm flag, and the exact confirm_phrase format. The `data` object's field names remain undocumented (deferred to the README or a discovery action=list call), which is the one meaningful 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 opens with a specific verb set (list/read/add/change/delete) and a concrete resource (Termix hosts), so the tool's scope is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling termix_add_many_hosts (bulk add) or termix_call, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

It maps each action to its prerequisites (host_id for get/update/delete, data for add/update, confirm=true for writes, an exact confirm_phrase for delete). That is clear operational guidance, but it never names alternatives such as termix_add_many_hosts for bulk creation or termix_credentials for secret handling.

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