add_ipmi_user

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

Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds useful context that the created user is temporary and intended for web access, but it does not disclose lifecycle details such as expiration, permissions, or how the temporary user relates to an existing IPMI user.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and purpose clearly. The parenthetical '(eq/add_ipmi_user)' is redundant and does not earn its place, but the overall description is concise and easy to parse.

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 low-complexity tool with only two required parameters and no output schema, the description plus the schema is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and why it is used, though it could be more complete by noting that the confirm parameter must be true and by mentioning the temporary nature in operational terms.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the general purpose, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage but does not go 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 uses a specific verb ('Создать' / create), a specific resource ('временного IPMI-пользователя'), and a clear purpose ('для веб-доступа к IPMI'). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like remove_ipmi_user and reset_ipmi, so an agent can identify what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 implies when to use the tool: when temporary web access to IPMI is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or related cleanup actions such as remove_ipmi_user, nor does it explain when this option should be preferred over other IPMI/VNC/KVM access tools.

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