pool_member_enable

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns a one-line confirmation, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, side effects, required permissions) beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Extremely concise: 4 lines of text plus Args. The '[WRITE]' tag front-loads the action. Every sentence is necessary and no redundant information.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters, good annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameters, and return value ('one-line confirmation'). No gaps.

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 carries the full burden. It documents both parameters in the Args section: 'pool: Pool name' and 'server: Server IP address.' While minimal, it adds meaning beyond the schema's titles. Could be slightly more specific about format.

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 clearly states the action ('Enable a pool member'), the resource, and the effect ('so it receives traffic again'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pool_list (listing pools) and pool_members (listing members) by specifying a write operation.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use pool_members first to verify the server IP. The server must already belong to the pool — this adds nothing.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after verification) and when not to (if server not in pool).

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