server_secure

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that SSH access is required, which is critical operational context. It does not disclose any potential side effects beyond what is implied, but the annotations carry much of the burden.

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 efficient, covering all key actions in a single paragraph without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary verb. A more structured layout (e.g., lists) could improve scannability, but current form is adequate.

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 description provides a comprehensive overview of available actions and prerequisites. With an output schema present, return value details are not needed. It covers operational constraints (SSH access) and alternatives, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 parameters are well documented. The description adds context beyond the schema, such as 'Auto-selected if only one server exists' for server and 'Optional SSH port for secure-setup' for port, improving clarity.

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 secures Kastell servers and breaks down actions into categories (secure, firewall, domain). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing server_lock for full one-shot hardening, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 states that all actions require SSH access and recommends using server_lock for full hardening, providing both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. This helps the agent choose correctly.

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