impreza_vps_reinstall

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

The description starts with 'DESTRUCTIVE: ... ALL DATA ON THE VPS IS ERASED', which fully discloses the irreversible nature of the operation. It also mentions password requirements. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the most critical information ('DESTRUCTIVE'), then explains the action, and ends with usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and usage. It could briefly mention what happens after the reinstall (e.g., a confirmation or status update), but the current level is adequate for safe usage.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining how to obtain `template_id` via a sibling tool and that `password` is the new root password with a minimum length of 8 characters, which goes beyond the schema's description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'wipe and reinstall a Proxmox VPS from an OS template'. It specifies the destructive nature and what it does, distinguishing it from sibling tools like `impreza_vps_status` or `impreza_vps_power`.

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 explicitly says 'Always confirm with the customer before calling', which provides clear when-to-use guidance. It also instructs to use `impreza_vps_list_templates` to pick a template, giving an explicit alternative step.

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