request_rh_kvm

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

The description discloses that the tool creates an external Jira ticket, that status and correspondence live there, and that a link will be emailed. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and correctly implies the action is non-read-only but not destructive.

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 short sentences cover the operation, the external ticket behavior, and the follow-up channel. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what is created, where to track it, and how the user will be notified. The only missing detail is the exact API response format, which is not required given the absence of an output schema.

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%: 'id' is documented as server ID and 'confirm' as a required true flag. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 precise action: creating a Remote Hands ticket to connect an IP KVM to a server. It includes its internal Jira identifier and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_rh_power_on or request_rh_reboot by naming the specific task.

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 description makes the use case explicit: this is for requesting a data-center duty shift to connect an IP KVM to a server. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it over the other request_rh_* siblings.

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