disable_hateoas

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by specifying the exact API endpoint (PATCH /system/restapi/settings) and emphasizing the global impact on all consumers. This adds meaningful context about the scope and method of the modification. Annotations already mark it as destructive and non-readonly, so the extra detail about server-wide impact is valuable.

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 description is two concise sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose and a necessary warning. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the global scope, the method of change, and adds a warning. Minor missing details like reversibility or immediate effect are not critical given the output schema and 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?

The input schema fully describes the 'confirm' parameter with the note 'Must be True to proceed', and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra parameter details, but its warning reinforces why the parameter is necessary. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter semantics clearly.

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 states 'Disable HATEOAS links in API responses on the pfSense server' which clearly identifies the exact action, resource, and scope. It is specific and distinguishable from the sibling tool 'enable_hateoas', so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 warning clearly indicates this is a server-wide setting affecting ALL API consumers, which provides important context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or describe alternatives beyond the implicit sibling 'enable_hateoas'. It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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