node_bootstrap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that execution is detached over the public IP, that the firewall reset severs public SSH, that polling must go through job_status, and that the server reboots 3 minutes after success. It also reveals the two-phase baseline (bootstrap then fleet-node-seal.sh) with ipset blocklists, MGMT-PORTS and agents.

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 core action followed by the sequence and caveats, and every clause carries real information. It is dense and somewhat run-on, with the baseline description packed into a single sprawling sentence, but nothing is wasted given the tool's complexity.

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 complex, annotation-free, output-schema-free provisioning tool this is remarkably complete: prerequisites, side effects (SSH severance, reboot), async lifecycle, dry-run semantics, and the follow-on sealing phase are all covered. An agent has enough to reason about blast radius before invoking.

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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds operational meaning by tying secretKey to the panel's SECRET_KEY, framing planHash as a one-shot dry-run token, and noting the Tailscale auth path (--ssh, exit node), though thinner params like hostname and remnanode remain unexplained.

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 ('Turn a fresh Ubuntu server into a node'), names the concrete script it drives, and enumerates the resulting stack. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by positioning scenario_start as the full-sequence runner and fleet_audit as the gap reporter.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: scenario_start runs the whole sequence while this is 'only the start of the current baseline', fleet_audit shows what is missing, and job_status is the polling mechanism. It also states the prerequisite (domain A record pointing at the server) and the apply/planHash gate.

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