hcloud_server_rebuild

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavior: that it is a hand-tuned wrapper and that it polls the resulting action by default. However, for a destructive operation it omits the most important consequence — that the server's disk is wiped and all existing data is lost — which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the parameter alternatives. No filler; each clause carries information. Slightly clipped in a way that leaves the destructive consequence unstated.

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?

A destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage needs more than this. It should warn that the rebuild destroys existing server state, mention what the polled action returns or when it resolves, and clarify the required id. The image argument handling is the only area covered adequately.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents the image_id OR image_name mutual exclusivity, which the schema does not express, and the "polls by default" clause explains the wait parameter. But the required id parameter is never described and mutual exclusivity is not stated as an enforced constraint.

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 and resource ("Rebuild a server from an image") that an agent can match against the server tool family, and implicitly positions itself as the hand-tuned wrapper around the low-level rebuild action. It does not explicitly name the sibling hcloud_server_rebuild_action as the alternative, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 says what the tool does but never says when to choose it over hcloud_server_rebuild_action, hcloud_server_reboot_action, or hcloud_server_reset_action. No preconditions, no exclusions, no caution about when rebuilding is inappropriate.

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