reset_ipmi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive remote operation. The description adds useful scope context (the reset targets the IPMI submodule, not the server), but says nothing about side effects such as temporary IPMI unavailability, the required confirmation gate, or expected downtime, leaving behavioral gaps for a mutating tool.

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 with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the usage condition follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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, no-output-schema mutation tool with annotations covering safety, the description tells the agent what the tool touches and when to reach for it. The main remaining gap is the absence of any note on downtime or the confirm requirement's purpose, but the schema covers the mechanics.

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%, with 'id' and 'confirm' fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or value guidance beyond what the schema already provides for these two parameters.

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 ('Reboot the server IPMI module') and even names the underlying operation (eq/unit_reset). This clearly distinguishes it from the many other reboot/power siblings such as reboot_server, power_off, and request_rh_reboot, which target the whole server rather than the IPMI module.

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?

Explicitly gives the triggering condition: 'Use when IPMI is unresponsive.' That is a concrete when-to-use context, clearly implying this is a recovery action rather than routine power control. It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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