reset_ipmi

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description mostly restates that a reset/reboot happens. It does not disclose important behavioral context such as temporary IPMI unavailability, possible loss of management access during the reset, or other side effects. Since annotations are thin, more burden falls on the description.

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 concise sentence with the action front-loaded and the usage condition immediately after. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 full schema coverage, the description is adequate for selection and basic invocation. However, it omits operational consequences of resetting an IPMI module, such as temporary loss of IPMI connectivity, which would make the definition more complete.

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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters (id and confirm) with descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. Baseline is 3; the description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema already carries that weight.

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?

Description states a concrete action ('Перезагрузить IPMI-модуль сервера' — reboot the server's IPMI module) and even names the underlying call (eq/unit_reset). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like power_on, reboot_server, or request_rh_reboot, which operate on the server rather than the IPMI module.

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 an explicit usage condition: 'Применять, если IPMI не отвечает' (use when IPMI is not responding). It provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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