Server has 12 tools with complete input schemas and descriptions, but quality is inconsistent. Naming follows verb_noun convention well (fleet_memory_search, fleet_task_submit, desktop_bridge_execute). However, descriptions are often generic and lack actionable context for LLM selection. Parameters are typed but many lack detailed constraints or format guidance. No output schemas documented. Error handling is absent from tool definitions. Security-critical tools (desktop_bridge_execute, fleet_memory_delete) lack confirmation patterns or permission documentation. Composition is reasonable, tools are single-purpose, but chaining metadata (IDs needed for follow-up calls) is not evident in descriptions.

• Document output schemas for all tools. Specify returned fields, types, and which IDs/references are needed for chaining (e.g., fleet_memory_store must return point_id; fleet_task_submit must return task_id).
• Add enum constraints to parameters with fixed options: target_domain, priority, action, metric. Replace free-form strings with formal enums to prevent hallucinated values.
• Implement confirmation patterns for destructive operations. Add a 'confirm' parameter or separate 'confirm_delete' tool for fleet_memory_delete. Document permission requirements for desktop_bridge_execute.
• Enhance descriptions with selection context: 'Use fleet_task_status to check a specific task's result; use fleet_task_list to see all pending tasks for your node.' Include expected response structure hints.
• Add error handling guidance to descriptions: 'Returns 404 if task_id not found, verify task was submitted successfully. Returns 503 if control plane is unavailable, retry after 30s.' This guides LLM recovery.