Установка типа загрузки ОС сервера

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

The description clearly warns that the server reboots ('Сервер перезагружается'), which is a critical behavioral side effect not mentioned in the annotations. It also adds context about what each mode does, going beyond the schema and annotations.

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 compact—two sentences that front-load the action and include the critical reboot warning. No redundant information; every phrase adds value.

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 simple setter with 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers the purpose, the parameter options with their nuances, and the important side effect (reboot). It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds meaningful enrichment by explaining the purpose of the 'single' mode (root recovery) and 'recovery_disk' semantics, making the enum values more actionable. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Меняет' (changes) and clearly identifies the resource 'boot_mode сервера' (server boot mode). It enumerates the three possible modes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_server_nat_mode.

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 explains the meaning and purpose of each boot mode (e.g., single is for root recovery, recovery_disk for booting from recovery disk), which implies usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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