request_rh_kvm

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds genuinely useful context: it creates a Remote Hands ticket routed to the datacenter on-call shift, and the status/correspondence live in that ticket with a link emailed. That asynchronous, ticket-driven outcome is not derivable from annotations. It stops short of noting the confirm=true gating behavior.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the ticket/notification detail. The parenthetical jira/request_kvm is compact rather than redundant.

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 fills the return-value gap by explaining that the result is a ticket with a link emailed and correspondence tracked there. The only remaining gap is the confirm=true requirement, which the schema covers adequately.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id as Server ID, confirm as a required true flag) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what is provided there, which is the expected 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?

States a specific verb and resource (attach IP KVM to the server) and ties it to the underlying jira/request_kvm operation. Within the request_rh_* sibling family (power_on, power_off, reboot, pxe_boot, check) the KVM attachment is unambiguous, so an agent can route here without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: request this when you need IP KVM attached. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention that the operation is asynchronous, and no pointer to alternatives such as the generic create_rhr_request or request_rh_check siblings.

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