create_pxe_config

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

The description repeats and emphasizes the destructive nature with 'ДЕСТРУКТИВНО', which is consistent with destructiveHint=true. It adds the step context but does not disclose what specifically gets overwritten or destroyed, nor does it mention the required 'confirm' flag or side effects on existing PXE configuration.

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 compact: one sentence plus a destructive warning. Every element carries purpose or caution, with the key action front-loaded. There is no filler or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite being a destructive 9-parameter operation with no output schema, the description only supplies a workflow step and a warning. It omits prerequisites, what the operation affects, expected results, and how it relates to companion tools like create_reinstall_task or clear_pxe_config. This is incomplete for safe invocation.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline 3 rather than compensating or enriching parameter semantics.

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 gives a specific verb ('создать') and resource ('PXE-конфиг') plus the purpose ('для установки ОС'), and labels it as 'Шаг 2 PXE-переустановки'. This clearly distinguishes it from related concepts like clear_pxe_config by stating it creates, not clears, a 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?

'Шаг 2 PXE-переустановки' provides clear contextual guidance: this tool is the second step in a PXE reinstall workflow. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list prerequisites, but the step placement is a useful usage signal beyond just naming the action.

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