pool_member_enable

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the '[WRITE]' tag and the effect of enabling traffic. However, it doesn't clarify behavior when the member is already enabled (e.g., idempotency), given idempotentHint=false. More detail on side effects would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose, one for guideline, and two lines for parameters. Every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the write indicator and purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 two parameters and an output schema (present), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to verify state, and parameter definitions. It could mention default behavior or error conditions, but the presence of an output schema likely handles that, so completeness is adequate.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description adds essential meaning: 'pool: Pool name' and 'server: Server IP address'. This clarifies that 'server' expects an IP address, which is not evident from the type alone. Given the low schema coverage, the description compensates well.

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 'Enable a pool member to start receiving traffic', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pool_member_disable' by implication, and the mention of 'pool members' for verification adds context.

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?

It explicitly advises using 'pool_members' first to verify server IP and current state, providing a clear prerequisite. While it doesn't list alternative tools or when not to use, the guidance is valuable and context-appropriate.

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