magg_enable_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description 'Enable a server' must stand alone. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, what side effects occur, authentication requirements, or the impact on the server's state.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from a minor expansion for completeness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks contextual details about the enabling behavior and expected outcomes, which would help an agent use it correctly.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter 'name' with a clear description 'Server name to enable'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 'Enable a server' clearly states the action (enable) and the resource (server). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'disable_server' or 'add_server' by using the contrasting verb 'enable'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'magg_disable_server' or other configuration tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when it should not be used.

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