machine_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well: it explicitly warns that 'rebuild and reset are destructive and will discard unsaved user data,' and instructs the agent to always confirm with the user. It also explains the graceful shutdown, hard reset, maintenance mode, and recovery semantics. It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or asynchronous behavior, but the core safety-relevant traits are disclosed.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a bulleted list of actions, and a brief caution. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most critical warning is placed at the end for emphasis. No filler or repetition of schema fields is present.

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 tool with eight actions and destructive potential, the description provides the essential context: what each action does, when force applies, and the data-loss caution. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required in the description. The main gap is the absence of guidance on selecting this tool over related session- or pool-level action tools, but within its own scope it is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema by explaining each enum action (e.g., 'shutdown: gracefully power off', 'rebuild: re-provision the machine from the pool's image') and by noting that force=true overrides active sessions for shutdown/restart. It does not add much for machine_ids or force beyond what the schema already says, but the action-level semantics are a major value-add.

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 opens with a specific verb + resource: 'Perform a bulk action on one or more machines.' It enumerates eight concrete actions, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. The resource scope clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that act on desktop pools, RDSH farms, or sessions.

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 gives a clear list of supported actions but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as reset_or_restart_sessions, desktop_pool_action, or individual machine getters/setters. There is no 'use this when...' or 'do not use for...' statement, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the resource type alone.

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