vrrp_enable

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

The description discloses that the operation is a write and requires confirmation, which is important because no annotations are provided and it carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not go further to explain the exact confirmation mechanism, potential side effects, or reversibility, but the core behavior is at least stated.

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 a single concise sentence with the core intent front-loaded ('Enable/disable VRRP') followed by a useful parenthetical about the write/confirmation behavior. It contains no filler, though it could arguably add a bit more detail without losing its efficiency.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, the output schema, and the existence of five parameters, the description leaves significant gaps. An agent is not informed about how to obtain or provide confirmation tokens, when the confirmation fields are required, or what the tool will return after a successful call, risking incorrect invocation.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description adds no direct meaning to any of the five parameters beyond the on/off concept, which is already encoded in the schema's enum. The phrase 'requires confirmation' hints that the confirmation fields are important but gives no semantics to user_code, acknowledge, confirm_token, or confirmation_id.

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 identifies the action (enable/disable) and the resource (VRRP), which sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools such as vrrp_set (configuration) or vrrp_show (read status). The 'write' marker reinforces that this is a state-changing operation.

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 gives clear context that this is a write operation requiring confirmation, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this vs alternatives like vrrp_apply or vrrp_reset, and the confirmation procedure is left to inference.

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