npm_disable_dead_host

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the operation. It does not say whether disabling is reversible, whether the host must already exist, whether the change is idempotent, or what happens to other configuration tied to the host.

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 tool is a single-action toggle and the description is one short front-loaded phrase with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though it could have used the same brevity to add one clause of necessary context.

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 toggle with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. However, with zero annotation coverage and no stated behavior for a state-changing operation, meaningful gaps remain.

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% and the single host_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 verb ('Disable') and resource ('dead host'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as npm_enable_dead_host, npm_delete_dead_host, or npm_update_dead_host, leaving the boundary between disabling and deleting to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like npm_delete_dead_host or npm_enable_dead_host. Usage is only weakly implied by the tool name, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions are stated.

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