add_ipmi_user

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the annotations: the user is temporary and intended for web access, which is not captured by readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. However, it does not disclose how the user's temporary nature is realized, whether any existing IPMI users are affected, or what the operation returns.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. The trailing parenthetical '(eq/add_ipmi_user)' is non-informative noise, and there is no structured guidance beyond the one-liner.

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 mutating operation with a confirm flag and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not explain what the response will contain, how credentials are delivered, whether an existing IPMI user is replaced, or any side effects. An agent could invoke it but would be uncertain about the outcome.

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%, with clear descriptions for both 'id' (server ID) and 'confirm' (must be true to execute). The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description states a specific action ('Создать' = create), resource ('IPMI-пользователя'), and scope ('временного... для веб-доступа' = temporary... for web access), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives like remove_ipmi_user, but 'create' and 'temporary' effectively distinguish it from removal tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist, or what conditions warrant creating a temporary IPMI user. The agent must infer usage entirely from the action itself.

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