clear_pxe_config

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: skipping this step causes an unexpected reinstall on the next reboot, which is exactly the kind of consequence an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the workflow position, then the action, then the consequence of omission — front-loaded and mostly waste-free. The terse 'step 7' and endpoint parenthetical are compact rather than padded.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, workflow ordering, and failure consequence, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor gaps (behavior if the config is already absent, why confirm plus id plus hostname are all required) remain.

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, hostname, confirm are all documented, including 'Must be true to run the operation'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so this is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (remove the PXE config), names the underlying endpoint (eq/clear_pxe), and locates the tool as step 7 of the PXE reinstall workflow. An agent can immediately distinguish it from the sibling create_pxe_config.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('REQUIRED after completion') and ties it to a concrete sequence position (step 7), which is strong context. It does not name a when-not condition or point at an alternative tool, so it falls just 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.