npm_enable_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, and it conveys nothing beyond the name. For a mutation tool it omits whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, whether it affects live traffic, or what side effects occur.

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?

A single four-word sentence with zero padding and the action front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 state-changing operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what enabling means operationally, what happens on an already-enabled host, or what confirms success.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('The ID of the dead host to enable'), and the description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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?

States a specific verb ('Enable') and resource ('dead host'), and the resource noun distinguishes it from the many enable_* siblings for proxy hosts, streams, and redirection hosts. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the adjacent npm_disable_dead_host or explain what state change occurs.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus npm_disable_dead_host, npm_update_dead_host, or the other enable tools. The enable/disable naming implies the usage, but nothing states prerequisites such as the host existing or being in a disabled state.

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