provision

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: default dry-run, execution gate, disk formatting requirement (format_devices), key creation caveat (solfleet never creates keys), and catch-up timeout. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The first sentence lists steps (slightly verbose but informative), the second explains parameters. It is efficient, though could be trimmed slightly.

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 5 parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists, and 14 sibling tools, the description covers dry-run, execution, disk formatting, key creation, and timeout. It does not miss critical behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains confirm, format_devices, and catchup_timeout_s with context (default, purpose, constraints). Name and version are not explained but are self-evident. Overall, the description adds meaning beyond schema for 3 of 5 parameters.

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 verb 'Bring up' and the resource 'bare host into a serving node', listing specific steps (preflight, user, system tuning, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like bootstrap_builder_host or upgrade by focusing on the full provisioning lifecycle.

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 explains the dry-run default and execution with confirm=true, and mentions gating by preflight/policy/audit. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like bootstrap_builder_host or upgrade, which are present in sibling tools.

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