npm_enable_proxy_host

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state side effects, idempotency, required permissions, reversibility, or what enabling a host actually changes. This is a mutation operation, and the description provides no transparency beyond the bare verb.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity means it lacks the structural elements (scope, effect, conditions) that would make it genuinely useful for an agent.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits what enabling a host does, whether the host must exist or be disabled first, and what the operation returns, leaving important operational context unaddressed.

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?

The tool has one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents host_id as 'The ID of the proxy host to enable.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Enable') and resource ('proxy host'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like disable_proxy_host and enable_stream. However, it merely restates the tool name and adds no scope or effect beyond what the name already conveys, so it does not reach the explicit differentiation seen in top-scoring definitions.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related operations like disable_proxy_host or get_proxy_host. The description offers no usage context at all.

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