request_rh_pxe_boot

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

The description explains the actual behavior: it creates a Remote Hands ticket for the data-center duty shift, with status and correspondence tracked in the ticket and a link sent by email. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the resulting workflow and notification side effect.

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?

Three concise sentences cover purpose, usage scenario, and outcome with no redundant wording. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 request tool, the description is sufficient: it explains the action, the trigger scenario, the ticket-creation behavior, and where to follow up. There is no output schema, but the description adequately covers expected results and follow-up via email.

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 the id and confirm parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the complete schema descriptions.

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 Remote Hands request to PXE-boot a server, and names the internal tracking reference (jira/request_PXEboot). It also distinguishes the purpose from sibling Remote Hands tools by specifying the PXE-boot scenario for OS reinstallation on servers lacking remote management.

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 gives concrete usage context: use when reinstalling the OS on servers without a remote management module. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the scenario is clear enough for an agent to select it over sibling request_rh_* tools.

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