clear_pxe_config

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true is reinforced and expanded with a concrete consequence: failing to run this tool may cause an unexpected reinstallation at the next reboot. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that pack the action, step context, endpoint hint, and a critical safety warning. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given the simple parameter set, fully documented schema, and destructive annotation, the description provides all necessary operational context. It explains why this step is mandatory and what happens if skipped; no return value is needed since there is no output schema.

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%, with each parameter already documented (id, hostname, confirm). The tool description does not add parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('удалить PXE-конфиг') and the specific resource (PXE config), plus the internal endpoint reference 'eq/clear_pxe'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_pxe_config by framing it as Step 7 of the PXE reinstallation flow.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: after PXE reinstallation completion. The strong warning ('ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНО после завершения') makes the usage context clear, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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