create_pxe_config

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description merely repeats 'ДЕСТРУКТИВНО' without adding details about what gets overwritten, whether the server will boot into the installer on next PXE boot, or whether the change is reversible. No meaningful behavioral context is added beyond the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action and workflow step. The parenthetical 'eq/create_pxe' adds minor noise, but the overall structure is efficient and free of 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, high-stakes operation with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not mention preconditions such as needing a reinstall_key from create_reinstall_task, what happens at next boot, how the config can be cleared, or what successful execution returns.

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%, so parameter descriptions already carry most of the semantic load. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning, interactions, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action: create a PXE config for OS installation, and places it as step 2 of the PXE reinstall flow. This makes the tool's function easily distinguishable from related operations like clearing a PXE config, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'Step 2 PXE-переустановки' provides an implied workflow context: use this after starting a reinstall flow. However, it does not state when to prefer this over related tools like create_reinstall_task or clear_pxe_config, nor does it list exclusions or preconditions.

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