gatekeeper_nginx_enable

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive action. The description adds useful operational behavior: it generates and enables a config, requires a running container, and is part of a defined deployment pipeline. It could disclose more about exact effects, but the existing context plus annotations are adequate.

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 core action appears first, followed by prerequisites and ordering. Every sentence adds essential decision or sequencing information, with no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 one-parameter action tool, the description covers the essential context: prerequisite conditions, exact placement in a 4-step workflow, and the next step. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but those are less critical given the clear workflow and absence of an 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?

Schema coverage for the single parameter is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly suggests that 'slug' identifies a project by saying the config is generated 'for a project,' but it never explicitly defines the slug format, valid values, or how it relates to the prerequisite project. This is minimally sufficient but not thorough.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Generate and enable an nginx site config for a project.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gatekeeper_nginx_disable, gatekeeper_nginx_validate, and gatekeeper_nginx_status, and the deployment-order context helps disambiguate it further.

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 explicit prerequisites and sequence: project must exist, container must be running, and this is step 3 of 4. It also names the tools to use before and after. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the clear step ordering provides strong usage context.

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