host_set_enabled

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

The description discloses meaningful side-effect behavior: enabling applies application configuration, while disabling retains files. It also states that execution is handled directly by the host. However, it does not elaborate on other potential side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing configuration beyond the enabled toggle, and annotations provide only openWorldHint=false.

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 short and every clause carries meaning related to behavior or parameters. The phrasing is somewhat fragmented, especially '使用由宿主直接完成', but it does not waste words and front-loads the core baseline/takeover concept.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description still leaves key invocation questions unanswered: what baseline properties are expected, what scope values are valid, when this tool should be used instead of host_apply, and what 'takeover' fully implies. The reference to host_status helps but does not make the tool safely invocable without additional investigation.

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 schema provides no descriptions for enabled, baseline, or scope, and description coverage is 0%. The description does add meaning for enabled ('enable applies config, disable retains files') and baseline ('use host_status's baseline'), but it does not explain the structure of the baseline object or the meaning of scope, leaving one parameter semantically uncovered.

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 clarifies the effect of the enabled flag: enabling applies configuration and disabling retains files, tied to a baseline from host_status. This gives a specific behavior rather than only restating the tool name, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like host_apply or host_preview.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as host_apply, host_preview, or host_preview_restore. It references host_status as the source of the baseline, but does not state when a user should choose host_set_enabled over other host-related operations.

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