Bring an interface up or down

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context they don't carry: taking down a bridge or WAN link can sever the router's own management connection, i.e. a self-lockout risk. That is exactly the kind of consequence information an agent needs before invoking a destructive mutation.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, hazard second, precondition last. Every sentence carries actionable information and the ordering front-loads what the tool does before the caveat.

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?

With no output schema and a fully documented 2-parameter schema, the description covers the remaining gaps: pre-call verification and the potential to cut off access. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely is missing.

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% for both parameters, with 'name' sourced from list_interfaces and 'state' constrained to an up/down enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format, naming, or default details beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb pair ('enables or disables') and an unambiguous resource ('network interface'), with the scope clarified as administrative state. An agent can tell this apart from read-only siblings like get_interface or list_interfaces without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names a prerequisite step ('Confirm what the interface carries with get_interface before calling this'), which routes the agent to a sibling for verification. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause or guidance on alternatives to reach the same outcome, so it falls short of a full 5.

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