request_rh_kvm

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it creates an external ticket for the datacenter duty shift, and status/correspondence live in the ticket with the link delivered by email. This discloses the asynchronous, external side-effect behavior well.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation name and action, with no filler. Every sentence contributes either to what the tool does or what outcome the caller should expect.

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 compensates by explaining the outcome: a ticket is created, status is tracked in the ticket, and a link arrives by email. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the operation and manage expectations about follow-up.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add material meaning beyond the schema: it mentions the server target but does not elaborate on id or the confirm flag, leaving parameter semantics to the schema.

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 states a specific action: 'подключить IP KVM к серверу' (connect IP KVM to the server) and clarifies it creates a Remote Hands ticket. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling request_rh_power_on/power_off/reboot/pxe_boot/check tools.

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?

The context is clear: use this tool when a Remote Hands request is needed to physically connect an IP KVM to a server. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the described operation is self-contained and distinct enough to guide selection.

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