set_volume_as_boot

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

Annotations already establish zero-value flags (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation cannot proceed while the VPS is running and confirmation is mandatory. It doesn't detail post-conditions or result behavior, but it covers the most safety-relevant operation constraints.

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 description is short and front-loads the purpose, but it includes an indirect reference to internal docs ('the same requirement vps.py's change_vps_hostname documents') which is not actionable for an agent reading only this tool definition. The instruction would be cleaner with just 'stop it first with stop_vps'.

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?

The core operation, prerequisite, and confirmation need are covered. Yet there is no mention of what happens after the call—such as whether the change is immediate, asynchronous, or reflected by retryable task status—and no output schema exists to fill that gap. More post-call behavior detail would improve completeness.

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 does clarify the roles of volume_id/vps_id through 'volume as a VPS's boot disk' and mandates confirm=true. However, it doesn't explicitly map each parameter to its meaning or provide type/format cues, leaving some burden on the agent.

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 clearly identifies a specific action: setting a volume as a VPS's boot disk. This is relatable and distinguishes it from related volume tools like attach_volume or install_os_on_volume, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 precondition (VPS must be stopped), tells the agent to use stop_vps first, and notes that confirm=true is required. This is strong usage guidance; it just doesn't go as far as saying when not to use the tool.

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