set_vps_reverse_dns

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds a key behavioral trait: it requires confirm=true to execute. This is valuable context beyond the annotations, informing the agent that the tool will fail without confirmation. However, it does not disclose side effects or reversibility, though given the annotations, this is adequate.

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 a single, tightly written sentence plus a brief requirement. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any redundancy. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding.

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?

For a simple tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a critical requirement. However, it omits parameter details (formats, validation) and does not describe the behavior when confirm is false (e.g., error or no-op). While not severely lacking, it leaves some gaps that an agent might need to infer.

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?

The schema provides zero description coverage for parameters. The description offers minimal hints: 'one of this VPS's IP addresses' implies the 'ip' parameter is an IP address of the VPS, and 'reverse-DNS (PTR) record' implies 'rdns' is the hostname. However, it does not specify formats, constraints, or the purpose of 'vps_id' beyond being an identifier. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states the action (Set), the resource (reverse-DNS/PTR record), and the scope (one of this VPS's IP addresses). It is specific and distinct from any sibling tools, as no other tool deals with reverse DNS. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true') which is a form of usage guidance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. Since there are no direct sibling tools for this specific action, the context is implicit, but the guidance is minimal.

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