hcloud_server_enable_rescue_action

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

Strong beyond-annotation disclosure: rescue mode auto-disables on first boot or after 60 minutes of non-use, and enabling it does not reboot the server. This is exactly the lifecycle context annotations cannot express. It omits what the SSH key injection does when ssh_keys is empty (whether a password is returned instead), which matters for a destructive/openWorld action.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the rationale, then two crisp behavioral facts (auto-expiry, no reboot). Every sentence carries information; only the markdown link to soft-reboot is mild clutter.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what an action resource is returned (especially given the 'wait' parameter that polls it), and it does not. Otherwise the operational picture — purpose, failure scenario, expiry, reboot requirement — is complete enough for an agent to call this 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 a middling 67%, and the description says nothing about any of the three parameters — not the required server id, not the body.ssh_keys array used to inject keys into the rescue system, and not the 'wait' polling switch. For a nested-object body where the user must supply SSH keys, the description leaves real ambiguity unaddressed.

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 ('Enable Rescue Mode for a Server') and explains concretely what the rescue system is: a minimal Linux distribution for repair and reinstall. It reads clearly against hcloud_server_disable_rescue_action and hcloud_server_reboot_action, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling hcloud_server_rescue, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition ('In case a Server cannot boot on its own you can use this to access a Server's disks'), which is genuine usage guidance, and it clarifies the relationship to rebooting ('you will have to do this yourself'). It stops short of naming the alternatives (disable_rescue, request_console, reboot) or stating when not to use it.

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