Enable Redirection Host

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that this mutates NPM state and applies configuration, that it returns the updated host object, and that dry_run previews the exact request. It omits permission/authorization requirements and reversibility specifics (e.g., whether disable_redirection_host undoes it), keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then alternatives, then behavioral notes and the dry_run escape hatch. Each sentence earns its place, though the return-value and dry_run statements slightly overlap with structured fields, preventing a full 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not strictly required, and the change semantics plus dry_run preview give an agent enough to call it correctly. Minor gap is the absence of permission/reversibility notes for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 100%, so both id and dry_run are already fully documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description echoes the dry_run preview behavior and the id's likely source (matching list tool), adding marginal value but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource (enable a disabled redirection host by ID) and explicitly explains the effect: NPM serves its redirect again. It also names what it is not, routing editing to update_redirection_host and status checks to list_redirection_hosts, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names alternatives and their conditions: update_redirection_host for destination/redirect-code edits and list_redirection_hosts for status, with the implicit condition that it applies to a currently disabled host. It also flags dry_run as the preview path, covering when-not-to-mutate.

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