bare_metal_update_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool supports smart identifier resolution (label, hostname, or UUID), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether the update is partial or full (e.g., whether omitted fields are reset to defaults), whether DDoS protection changes require a reboot, or any side effects. The 'Returns: Updated bare metal server details' line is helpful but minimal.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is a clean list, and the Returns line is useful. It earns its place without excessive verbosity. Minor deduction for not adding any usage guidance or behavioral nuance that would make it more valuable.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists. The description covers the parameters and return value, but it lacks context about partial updates, idempotency, or state requirements. For a mutation tool with no annotations, an agent would benefit from knowing whether this is a PATCH-like partial update or a PUT-like full replacement, and whether any fields are mutually exclusive. The output schema exists, so return details are covered, but behavioral context is incomplete.

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 list each parameter with a brief semantic ('New label', 'New tag', 'New user data', 'Enable/disable DDoS protection'), which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't explain nuances like whether 'tag' is a single tag or list, what format user_data should be in, or whether enable_ddos_protection is a toggle that requires other parameters. The parameter list is present but shallow.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update a bare metal server.' It also lists the updatable fields (label, tag, user_data, enable_ddos_protection), which distinguishes it from sibling operations like create, delete, start, stop, reboot, and reinstall. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools in the sibling list (e.g., instance_update, block_storage_update), though the resource name in the tool name and description makes that 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 context by naming the resource and the fields that can be updated, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server must exist, server must be in a certain state) or when not to use it. The smart identifier resolution note is helpful for usage, but there's no explicit routing to alternatives.

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