bare_metal_reinstall_bare_metal_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Reinstall' which implies a destructive operation, but it doesn't disclose that reinstalling will likely wipe data, require confirmation, or have irreversible effects. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or side effects. The 'Returns' section is minimal and doesn't explain the operation's impact.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. The Args and Returns sections are clearly structured. It doesn't waste words, though it could add a bit more behavioral context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given it's a destructive operation with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention that reinstalling will likely erase existing data, require an OS image, or have long-running implications. The output schema exists but the description doesn't explain what 'Reinstall operation details' means. For a destructive tool, more context is needed.

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 explain server_identifier as 'The bare metal server label, hostname, or ID' and hostname as 'New hostname for the server', which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't clarify whether hostname is optional or what happens if omitted, though the schema shows default null. The description adds some value but not comprehensive.

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: 'Reinstall a bare metal server.' It also mentions smart identifier resolution, which adds clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like bare_metal_reboot_bare_metal_server or instance_reinstall, though the resource and action are clear enough.

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 implies usage by stating the action and parameters, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like bare_metal_reboot_bare_metal_server or bare_metal_update_bare_metal_server. It mentions smart identifier resolution, which is a usage hint, but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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