Exit service rescue mode

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), it discloses that the service may restart, that it requires services:rescue and full API-key access, and that a needs_attention outcome should be retried with the same idempotencyKey. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then prerequisites, then the retry edge case. No filler and nothing repeated unnecessarily.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the side effect, auth scope, confirmation requirement, and failure/retry handling. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 in the schema. The description reinforces the session UUID provenance and the idempotencyKey stability rule but adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema text. Baseline 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 (restore), the exact resource (pre-rescue boot configuration and original running/stopped state), and the scope (one owned service). This clearly distinguishes it from enter_service_rescue and get_service_rescue among the siblings.

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 and sequencing: read get_service_rescue first, pass its exact session UUID, and only call after explicit user confirmation. It also names the retry condition for needs_attention. No explicit exclusion of an alternative tool is given, but the when-to-use path is unambiguous.

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