desktop_pool_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the behavioral difference between enable/disable (session establishment) and enable-provisioning/disable-provisioning (VM provisioning). It also notes that disabling sessions allows existing sessions to continue, which is important behavioral context. It doesn't mention side effects like whether disabling affects running VMs, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies the two action dimensions, and the third gives a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 two-parameter tool with a full schema and output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the core behavior and the maintenance use case. It doesn't describe return values, but the output schema exists, so that's not required. A minor gap is not mentioning whether actions are reversible or if there are prerequisites (e.g., pool must exist), but the schema and context cover most needs.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the semantic difference between the two action types and the maintenance use case. It doesn't add much beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, but the schema is already thorough. The description reinforces the key distinction, earning a 4 rather than a baseline 3.

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: enabling, disabling, or toggling provisioning for desktop pools. It distinguishes between session control and provisioning control, which is a key nuance. The verb 'enable/disable/toggle' is specific and the resource 'desktop pools' is explicit.

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 clear context on when to use the tool and even gives a specific use case: 'Disabling provisioning is the correct way to pause scale-out during maintenance.' It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list shows related pool tools (create/update/delete) and this tool's action-oriented purpose is clear. A slight gap is not mentioning when to use this vs. machine_action or rdsh_farm_action, but the pool-specific scope is evident.

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