create_reinstall_task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description adds concrete value by specifying WHAT is destroyed ('wipes server disks') and by naming the returned reinstall_key. It still omits auth/permission requirements and whether the destruction is immediate or deferred to a later step, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then the return value then the danger warning. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the return value (reinstall_key), the destructive consequence, and the link to check_task. It leaves the surrounding reinstall workflow (relationship to create_pxe_config / reinstall_server, and whether the wipe happens here or later) implicit, so an agent may need to infer sequencing.

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% and both parameters (id, confirm) are documented in the schema, including that confirm must be true. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or valid values, so this is the baseline case where the schema does all the work.

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+resource ('create an OS reinstall master key (eq/reinstall)') and positions it as step 1 of a named flow, plus names the downstream sibling check_task that consumes its output. An agent can distinguish it from reinstall_server or create_pxe_config from the description alone.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it ('PXE reinstall step 1', output feeds check_task to track stages), which is real sequencing guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative or an exclusion (e.g. when to prefer reinstall_server or create_pxe_config instead), so it does not reach the explicit when/when-not bar.

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