set_boot_device

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the mutation aspect is covered. The description adds context about the media meanings and the reinstall steps, but does not disclose further behavioral details such as reversibility or server state requirements. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that leads with the purpose and then succinctly maps each media value to its meaning. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with three parameters fully covered by the schema, the description provides sufficient operational guidance. It explains the media enum, and the confirm parameter is self-explanatory from the schema. The destructive nature is already declared via annotations, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

While the schema already documents all three parameters (coverage 100%), the description enriches the media enum by explaining each value's purpose and associated reinstall step. This goes beyond the schema's bare 'Устройство загрузки' and adds actionable meaning, so it earns above the baseline.

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 verb 'Установить' (set) and the resource 'порядок загрузки сервера' (server boot order), and enumerates the three valid media values with their meanings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like power_on or reinstall_server, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context for each media value, tying them to reinstall steps (pxe = step 3, disk = step 6, cd = mounted ISO). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like request_rh_pxe_boot, but the step references give clear when-to-use guidance.

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