npm_update_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. It notes that advanced_config is supported, but says nothing about whether unspecified fields are preserved (PATCH vs PUT semantics), permission/auth requirements, reversibility, or side effects on SSL/HSTS settings — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core operation leads, with the advanced_config note as secondary. Efficient, though the second sentence adds little beyond the schema.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits update semantics (partial vs full), permission requirements, and what happens to the certificate/SSL fields when changed — the exact behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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 all eight parameters (host_id, ssl_forced, domain_names, hsts_enabled, http2_support, certificate_id, advanced_config, hsts_subdomains) are already documented in the schema. The description only calls out advanced_config, which is redundant with the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource ('Update an existing dead host'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling update tools (npm_update_proxy_host, npm_update_redirection_host, npm_update_stream, npm_update_access_list), so an agent must infer the target type from the tool name alone.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. the host must already exist, or that this is a partial vs full update), and no mention of related enable/disable/delete siblings. The single sentence merely restates the operation.

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