set_desktop_pool_enabled

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

Annotations cover idempotency, read-only, open-world, and destructive flags, but the description adds materially: the partial effect (new sessions blocked, existing unaffected), the noop-on-match behavior, the blast_radius return, the refusal when state is unreadable, and that the operation is audited. That is exactly the beyond-annotations context expected, and it does not conflict with destructiveHint=false since re-enabling is possible and existing sessions continue.

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-loads the [WRITE] tag and core action, then layers idempotency, blast_radius, workflow guidance, and auditing in a logical order. Dense but nearly every sentence carries operational weight, with only mild restatement of the confirm semantics already in the schema.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what the bare call returns (pool identity, current and new enabled state), what the refusal condition is, and how the audited two-phase flow behaves. An agent has everything needed to invoke this mutation safely.

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 100%, and the schema already documents target, confirm, enabled, and pool_id in detail, including the blast-radius semantics of confirm. The description reinforces the confirm behavior for a safety-critical reason but adds little syntactic meaning the schema does not already provide, so baseline 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?

Starts with a [WRITE] tag and names a specific verb pair (enable/disable) plus the resource (desktop pool), then adds the scope nuance that disabling stops new sessions while existing ones keep running. The pool_id reference to list_desktop_pools orients the agent relative to a sibling listing tool.

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?

States exactly when to call bare (returns blast_radius, changes nothing) versus with confirm=True, prescribes the workflow (show blast_radius to the user and wait), and explicitly forbids auto-confirming. It even guards against a specific failure mode (the user asked earlier but has not seen the blast radius).

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