Console service

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the token cannot be redeemed via API, Firecracker refuses API-key calls, the service must be running or in rescue, and it requires services:manage plus a full-access API key. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, then the limitations. Every sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information with no repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, return type, redemption limitation, environment constraint, authentication requirements, and a fallback action. Nothing material is missing.

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 the single orderNo parameter is fully documented in the schema (pattern, length, example). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 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 ('Request a legacy or Cloud VPS console session') plus the return value ('tracking event ID'). It explicitly scopes itself against the Firecracker serial console, letting an agent tell which console tool applies without opening a schema.

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 explicit when-not guidance ('cannot redeem the one-time console token', 'Firecracker serial console is browser-only and refuses API-key calls') and prerequisites ('service must be running unless an active rescue session permits console access'). It even tells the agent what to do instead: direct the user to the panel.

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