pool_member_enable

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description reinforces this with [WRITE] and explains the outcome (start receiving traffic). No contradictions with annotations. Does not elaborate on idempotency or error states, but the bar is lowered due to annotation coverage.

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?

Description is three sentences: first is the core purpose, second gives a usage hint, third lists parameters. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two plain-string parameters, single action), the description covers the main purpose and prerequisite. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists. Missing details like error conditions or idempotency are minor for this straightforward enable action.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It defines pool as 'Pool name' and server as 'Server IP address', going beyond the schema's simple type. This provides sufficient context for parameter usage.

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?

Description explicitly states the action (enable a pool member to start receiving traffic) with a verb-resource pair. The [WRITE] prefix and reference to pool_member_disable sibling make the purpose distinct from other pool member 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?

Provides a clear precondition: use pool_members first to verify server IP and state. This guides the agent on when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the single suggested step.

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