create_pxe_config

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the one-word 'DESTRUCTIVE' adds nothing beyond structured data. The description does supply workflow sequencing (step 2) and the upstream API op (eq/create_pxe), but omits what actually gets destroyed (existing OS/data), the confirm=true gate, and any prerequisite ordering — gaps that matter for an irreversible reinstall.

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?

Two compact clauses with the workflow position front-loaded and the API endpoint in parentheses. No filler; every fragment carries information.

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 9-parameter, 5-required destructive mutation with no output schema, the description is thin: it never states that create_reinstall_task must run first to yield reinstall_key, nor that confirm must be true. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the sequencing prerequisite an agent needs to call this correctly is only half-stated.

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% across all 9 parameters, so the schema already documents every field including confirm and reinstall_key semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the correct 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('create a PXE config for OS install') and pins its position in a workflow ('PXE reinstall step 2'), which separates it from siblings like clear_pxe_config and create_reinstall_task. It stops short of explicitly stating which sibling precedes it, so the distinction is implied rather than named.

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?

'PXE reinstall step 2' implies this must follow an earlier step, which is useful ordering context, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is given. An agent must infer that create_reinstall_task produces the reinstall_key this tool expects.

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