instance_reinstall

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavior disclosure. It says 'Reinstall an instance's operating system,' which implies a destructive operation, but it never explicitly warns that existing data on the instance may be erased, that the instance may become unavailable, or that the operation is irreversible. It also lists a 'ctx' argument that does not appear in the input schema, adding ambiguity.

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, front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, and separates Args from Returns clearly. The only structural flaw is documenting ctx as an argument when the input schema does not define it.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic invocation details and result. However, given this is a destructive reinstall operation with no annotations, the absence of any warning about data loss or operational impact leaves a meaningful completeness gap.

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: instance_id is explained as accepting an ID, label, or hostname with concrete examples, and hostname is marked optional with a clear meaning. The unexplained 'ctx' parameter not present in the schema prevents a higher score.

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 opens with a specific, actionable statement — 'Reinstall an instance's operating system' — naming both the verb and the resource. This clearly separates the tool from siblings like instance_reboot, instance_update, and instance_delete without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose reinstall over alternatives such as instance_reboot or instance_update, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and one-line purpose.

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