hcloud_server_request_console_action

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the description's real contribution is the behavioral detail it adds: the returned URL expires after 1 minute while an established connection is not subject to that timeout. That is genuinely useful and non-obvious. It stops short of saying why a read-like 'request' carries destructiveHint=true or what authorization is needed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the timeout caveat follows immediately. The heading slightly duplicates the tool name, but there is no filler beyond that.

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 correctly tells the agent what comes back (a URL) and how long it lives, which is the key operational fact for this tool. Combined with annotations covering safety hints, an agent has enough to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, wait) are documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no extra semantics about the server identifier or the polling behavior of wait, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Request Console for a Server') and then specifies exactly what is obtained: VNC-over-websocket credentials for keyboard, monitor, and mouse. No sibling tool offers console access, so there is nothing to confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied — the agent can infer this is the tool for out-of-band VNC access — but the description never states prerequisites (server must be running? root password set?) or points to alternatives such as rescue mode or SSH when console access is not the right choice.

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