set_boot_device

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what each boot mode actually does (network vs disk vs mounted ISO), but says nothing about confirmation requirements, side effects, or reversibility beyond what annotations supply.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the enum semantics bundled inline; no filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies enough to act correctly, including workflow placement. It is only marginally short on explicit when-to-use-vs-sibling guidance.

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 would be 3, but the description genuinely enriches the 'media' enum by defining each value's meaning (pxe = network boot, disk = boot from disk, cd = mounted ISO) beyond the schema's bare 'Boot device' label. It adds little for 'id' or 'confirm', which the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Set server boot order') and even names the underlying API field (eq/boot_dev), so an agent immediately knows it changes a server's boot device. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like request_rh_pxe_boot or reinstall_server, which also touch boot/PXE 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?

Workflow placement is hinted at via '(reinstall step 3)' and '(step 6)' and the prerequisite 'cd — mounted ISO', giving implicit context for when each mode applies. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., request_rh_pxe_boot), leaving selection to inference.

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