enclave_heal

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the concrete side effects: MTU is forced to 1350, RDP-over-UDP is disabled, and the Bastion RDP session is reconnected (an inherently disruptive action that drops the live session). What it omits is equally important: whether the operation is idempotent, whether it requires elevated permissions, whether the changes are reversible, and what happens on partial failure across the four steps.

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 dense sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the optional step correctly marked "optionally". The comma-separated chain of four actions is efficient, though it reads as a run-on and could be more scannable as a short list.

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 zero-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description names the effects but leaves out operational context an agent needs: whether the RDP reconnect interrupts the caller, whether re-running is safe, and how to interpret success. The enumerated actions make it usable, but not fully self-sufficient.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema and the baseline is 3. The description does add a little value by mapping "optionally refresh interactive session credentials" onto update_credentials, but it says nothing about tx_id or the transaction-reuse semantics that parameter carries.

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 uses a specific verb ("Heal") plus a concrete resource (Appliance MTU) and enumerates the exact actions taken: setting MTU to 1350, disabling RDP-over-UDP, refreshing credentials, and reconnecting the Bastion RDP session. An agent can tell what state changes result. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings like enclave_doctor or enclave_clean, which plausibly overlap with "heal".

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 explicit statement of when to invoke this versus enclave_doctor, enclave_clean, or enclave_status, and no prerequisites or preconditions (e.g. symptoms that warrant healing, whether the target must be reachable). Usage must be inferred from the word "Heal" alone, which is thin given how many sibling remediation/diagnostic tools exist.

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