hostname_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and operational risk. It only says 'Change the server hostname' and hints at SSL reissue, but it does not explain reversibility, permissions, service impact, or whether the change is destructive. This is insufficient for a server-level mutation.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler. The Args block is compact and the follow-up instruction is useful, though the confirm wording is ambiguous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. However, a hostname change is a significant server-wide operation, and the description lacks side-effect warnings, permission requirements, and a clear contract for the confirm parameter. This is not enough for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description must define parameters. It does clarify that hostname is a 'New FQDN', which is helpful. However, the confirm description says 'Required', contradicting the schema's required list of only hostname and its default of false; it also omits the expected value/type for confirm.

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 opens with 'Change the server hostname.', which is a clear, specific verb-plus-resource statement. It unambiguously identifies the operation and is not easily confused with any sibling tool.

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?

The description provides actionable guidance: it marks confirm as required and explicitly instructs the agent to reissue the hostname SSL afterwards with ssl_reissue_server. It does not list exclusions or alternative conditions, but for this unique system operation the context is clear.

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