Enable Stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the mutation ('changes the stream state in NPM'), the return value, and a dry_run preview that avoids changing NPM. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether the operation is idempotent on an already-enabled stream.

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-loaded with the action and effect, followed by routing and the dry_run tip. Efficient overall, though 'This changes the stream state in NPM' partly restates the opening sentence.

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 details are covered, and the description still notes the updated stream object is returned. For a two-parameter mutation with no annotations, it supplies the safety and routing context an agent needs, lacking only auth/idempotency details.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the practical meaning of dry_run (preview the exact request) but nothing about the id format beyond what the schema says.

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), resource (TCP/UDP stream), and the effect (NPM forwards its incoming port again). It also names the sibling tools it is not (update_stream, list_streams), so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Routes the agent explicitly: use update_stream for ports/protocol flags and list_streams to check status. It implies the trigger condition (a disabled stream) but does not spell out when to prefer disable_stream over enable_stream beyond the name.

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