Flush iptables

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the required permission (services:manage) and the full-access API key precondition, which an agent needs before attempting the call.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the auth caveat follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 destructive operation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and use case. It could note the post-flush state (e.g., whether rules are removed entirely or reset to defaults), but it is otherwise sufficient to invoke correctly.

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% (orderNo is fully documented with pattern, length, and example), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (flush) and resource (iptables rules) scoped to a VPS, which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from every sibling tool in the list. An agent can immediately tell what this does.

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?

The parenthetical '(useful when locked out)' gives a concrete when-to-use scenario, which is genuinely helpful routing context. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it, so it misses the top band.

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