request_rh_pxe_boot

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

The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavior: it creates a Remote Hands ticket, routes it to the data-center duty shift, and explains that status and correspondence live in the ticket with a link sent to email. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three short, dense sentences. It front-loads the operation and purpose, then states when it is needed and what the user gets back. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what happens, why it is used, and how to track the result. It also implicitly explains that the tool does not directly perform the boot but creates a human-executed ticket, which is essential context.

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 the schema already documents 'id' as server ID and 'confirm' as a required boolean. The description does not add new parameter-level details, so it provides no extra semantic value beyond the baseline.

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: 'загрузить сервер по PXE' (boot server via PXE) via a Remote Hands request. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling request_rh_* tools by specifying the PXE-boot action and ticket-creation behavior.

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 description gives a concrete use context: 'Нужна при переустановке ОС на серверах без модуля удалённого управления.' This tells an agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or state when not to use it.

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