enable_hateoas

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveness, but the description adds concrete behavioral scope: it modifies a server-wide setting via PATCH, affects ALL API consumers, and is not limited to the current MCP session. This enriches the risk profile and provides context beyond the annotation flags.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a critical warning. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the global impact and the specific endpoint. It could mention that disable_hateoas can reverse the change, but this is not strictly necessary given the sibling list and the output schema.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter (confirm) with a clear description, and the tool description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Enable HATEOAS links in API responses on the pfSense server.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the sibling tool disable_hateoas.

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 description provides no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like disable_hateoas. The warning about global impact implies caution but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool or when to avoid it.

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