Enable Proxy Host

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 this mutates NPM host state, that the configuration is applied, that the updated host object is returned, and that dry_run=True previews the request without changing NPM. It omits permission/auth requirements and idempotency behavior, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and effect before the alternative-tool routing. The 'Returns the updated host object' sentence is slightly redundant given the output schema exists, but overall there is little waste.

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 still covers mutation effect, dry_run preview, and tool routing. For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this is nearly sufficient, with only auth/permission context 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description restates the ID and dry_run preview without adding format or edge-case detail. 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 (enable) and resource (proxy host), scoped by ID, with the effect spelled out: NPM resumes serving the configured domain routing. It clearly contrasts with update_proxy_host and list_proxy_hosts, so an agent can pick it apart from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Names two alternatives and their conditions ('use update_proxy_host to change host settings; use list_proxy_hosts to confirm status and ID'), giving clear routing context. It stops short of an explicit exclusion against the obvious complement, disable_proxy_host, so it's strong but not fully exhaustive.

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