hcloud_image_change_protection_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds the snapshot-only scope, but does not disclose that disabling protection enables subsequent deletion of the snapshot, nor that the call produces a pollable action (relevant given the 'wait' parameter defaulting to true). Useful but not rich context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope constraint; nothing wasted. The heading 'Change Image Protection' lightly duplicates the tool name rather than adding information.

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 3-parameter mutation with nested body, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the definition is minimally sufficient. It leaves out the snapshot-only failure mode's consequence and the fact that the returned action can be polled via 'wait' or hcloud_wait_action, which an agent needs to sequence calls correctly.

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 67%: 'id' and 'wait' are documented in the schema, and 'body.delete' carries its own description ('prevents the snapshot from being deleted'). The description adds only the framing that the body controls 'protection configuration'; it says nothing about the wait/polling behavior or defaults beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Changes the protection configuration') and resource ('the Image'), which cleanly separates it from hcloud_update_image, hcloud_delete_image, and the other *_change_protection_action siblings. It also adds an eligibility constraint ('Can only be used on snapshots'), though it doesn't name any sibling it replaces.

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 clause 'Can only be used on snapshots' is a real precondition that prevents a failed call against a non-snapshot image. However, there is no guidance on when to reach for this versus hcloud_update_image, nor on how to revert protection, so usage is only implied beyond that one eligibility rule.

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