wipe_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It properly indicates that the tool is destructive ('deleting saved config/VLANs') and can affect multiple nodes ('or all nodes'). However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, what happens to running nodes, or if there are side effects on the lab.

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 short (two sentences plus a simple 'Args' list) with no unnecessary text. The key purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The structured list of parameters is clear and 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 tool is destructive, has an output schema (suggesting a return value), and acts on a lab node. The description covers the core function and key parameter semantics, but lacks details on return values (the output schema is not described), error states, or preconditions (e.g., node state). Given the complexity of a destructive lab operation, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in input schema), but the description provides a basic explanation for each parameter in the 'Args' section. It explains 'lab_path' as the path to the .unl file and 'node_id' as the node to wipe with the note that omitting it wipes all nodes. This adds value beyond the bare schema and defaults, achieving baseline functionality.

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 action ('Wipe one node (or all nodes)') and the purpose ('deleting saved config/VLANs so it rebuilds from image'). The verb 'wipe' combined with the resource 'node' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_lab_node or edit_lab_node.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain how 'wipe' differs from 'delete' (delete_lab_node) or when you would want to wipe rather than just restart. There is no guidance on prerequisites, such as ensuring the node is stopped before wiping.

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