pool_member_enable

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

The description discloses the return format ('one-line confirmation'), marks the operation as [WRITE], and clarifies that no membership addition occurs. These details go beyond what the annotations alone convey. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences: the action and outcome are first, followed by return format and a necessary precondition. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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?

The tool is simple, both parameters are required and fully described in the schema, an output schema exists, and the description covers the key behavioral nuance. An agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that pool must be an exact literal name and server is an IP address. The description adds the practical note to verify via pool_members, but does not substantially expand parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Enable a pool member so it receives traffic again.' This clearly differentiates it from pool_member_disable and states the intended effect. The [WRITE] prefix reinforces the action type.

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 instructs to 'Use pool_members first to verify the server IP' and states that 'The server must already belong to the pool — this adds nothing.' This gives useful context and a precondition, though it does not explicitly mention the sibling pool_member_disable as the inverse alternative.

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