instance_rescue

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile, and the description adds substantive behavior: a Linux rescue system boots instead of the OS, the disk is mounted for repair, and a subsequent reboot returns to normal boot. It omits prerequisites (must the instance be running?) and how long rescue mode persists, but it goes well beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the verb/resource/endpoint, then a single explanatory paragraph that earns its place by defining rescue mode. Mildly verbose and contains a typo ('sytstem'), but no filler sentences.

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 3-parameter mutation with a nested body, no output schema, and full schema descriptions, the definition covers what the operation does and its effect on the instance. Missing only ancillary details like permission requirements and preconditions.

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 coverage is 100% and each of sshKeys, userData, rootPassword and instanceId is documented in the schema itself; the description only restates the instance identifier and adds no extra meaning to the body parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rescue a compute instance / resource identified by its id') plus the underlying endpoint, and the second sentence explains what rescue mode actually is, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling operations like instance_restart or reinstall_instance.

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 gives a clear use scenario ('reboot your instance in rescue mode to resolve system issues') and describes the recovery workflow, but never explicitly contrasts with alternatives such as reinstall_instance or snapshot rollback, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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