set_boot_device

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

Annotations already classify this as a destructive, non-read-only operation, and the description adds little behavioral detail beyond explaining what each media option means. It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or post-conditions, such as whether the server must be powered off or whether the change takes effect immediately.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and then maps each enum value to its meaning. There is no redundant text, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

The schema covers all parameters and annotations indicate destructiveness, but the description lacks explicit usage guidance and doesn't state any prerequisites or consequences. For a destructive operation, the agent would benefit from more context about when to invoke it, though the step references provide some navigational hints.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning to the 'media' enum by explaining each value (pxe = network boot, disk = disk boot, cd = mounted ISO) and even references 'eq/boot_dev', which provides context beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 the action ('set server boot order') and lists the three allowed media values with their meanings (pxe, disk, cd), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like request_rh_pxe_boot or create_pxe_config, so it's clear but lacks named sibling distinctions.

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 implies when each media value should be used by referencing reinstallation steps (pxe=step 3, disk=step 6), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is present but not fully explicit.

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