Enter service rescue mode

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

Adds concrete side effect 'interrupts every running service' and authorization requirements ('services:rescue, full API-key access') plus idempotency-key freshness. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description supplies the specific blast radius and auth context. Strong disclosure beyond structured fields.

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 purpose, then prerequisite, side effect, confirmation gate, and auth. Every sentence carries a distinct operational fact; no filler.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects, and auth. It does not explain the post-entry state, but exit_service_rescue is a sibling and no output schema exists, so this is adequate.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including image provenance and idempotency-key semantics. The description reinforces 'exact advertised image ID' and 'fresh idempotencyKey' but adds no new syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Restart one owned active Firecracker VPS or Cloud VPS into an operator-owned rescue system.' The rescue-system target distinguishes it from generic restart_service. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 prerequisites ('Read get_service_rescue first') and a hard gate ('Call only after the user explicitly confirms the target service, rescue image, and reboot'). Also warns 'This interrupts every running service.' It does not name a competing alternative such as restart_service or exit_service_rescue, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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