sylve_jail_bootstrap

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not say that create is a long-running download of base sets, that delete is irreversible, or that the list action is a harmless read despite the blanket destructive flag. For a three-mode tool, the description leaves the agent to guess the behavior of each mode.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the resource and the three modes come first. It is efficient, though the brevity is achieved by omitting information rather than by editorial discipline.

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 8 parameters, three distinct modes, no output schema, and destructive behavior, this tool needs far more than one sentence. The description never covers which parameters are required for which action, what the return looks like, or how the operation relates to the download/jail siblings, so it is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Eight parameters at 63% schema coverage, and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all. Critically, it does not map parameters to actions (name for delete, major/minor for create, pool for all) nor explain the action enum values, which is the single most important thing for a multi-action tool. The phrase 'on a ZFS pool' only weakly hints at the pool parameter that the schema already documents.

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 names three concrete verbs (list, create, delete) and a specific resource ('pkgbase FreeBSD jail bootstraps on a ZFS pool'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool touches. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like sylve_jail_create, sylve_jail_delete, or sylve_jail_list, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone whether 'bootstrap' is a prerequisite step or an alternative to jail creation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the jail_* siblings, no prerequisites (e.g., pool must exist, base sets must be fetched), and no per-action conditions. The reader must infer usage entirely from the verb list.

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