enable_interface

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the write guard, the dry-run/apply confirm flow, that the interface is never created, and that a missing interface errors clearly. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then guard and confirm semantics in compact sentences. No filler; every clause adds actionable detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Between the purpose, guard, confirm flow, and error behavior, nothing needed to invoke this tool correctly 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains confirm (preview vs apply) and interface_name (must exist, never created), covering the two semantically critical params; device_name is left implicit but is self-evident.

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 (enable) and resource (network interface) plus the concrete effect (sets disabled=no). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling disable_interface and enable_route/enable_firewall_rule tools.

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 lays out the two-step workflow: call with confirm=False for a preview, then confirm=True to apply. Also states the preconditions (MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true) and the failure case (interface must exist). No inference required.

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