beszel_system_edit

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one non-obvious hazard: deleting while the agent runs causes the card to be recreated. However, it omits that calls default to a safe dry run, that apply requires a one-shot planHash that is invalidated if targets change, and whether it fails on ambiguous name matches — all of which the schema states but the description does not reinforce.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the rename/delete scope and target resolution front-loaded before the operational caveat. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 5-parameter, destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and one major hazard but leaves the dry-run/apply safety model, ambiguity handling, and post-call state entirely to the schema. Adequate but clearly incomplete for a mutation 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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the parenthetical clarifying that "host" may be a tailnet name or IP, a modest clarification over the schema's "exact card name or host", and gives no semantics for apply/remove/planHash beyond what the schema already documents.

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 pair of verbs (rename or delete) on a specific resource (Beszel card) and defines how the target is located (exact name or host / tailnet name / IP). It is distinguishable from listing tools like beszel_systems, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete operational precondition for the destructive path ("Delete only after the agent on that machine is stopped, or it recreates the card"), which is real when-not guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or telling the agent to enumerate candidates via beszel_systems before calling with an exact-match locator, and it defers dry-run guidance entirely to the schema.

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