Extend HTB Machine

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, and the description largely restates this as 'Non-destructive,' adding the mild detail that the running box and its state are untouched. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens to a machine that is not running, so the added value over the annotations is modest.

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?

Two short, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the core action comes first and the default-target rule follows immediately.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essential default-target behavior and safety note. It is nearly complete, missing only edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens with an invalid or expired machine).

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented in the schema, including the 'omit to extend the active machine' default. The description repeats that default behavior rather than adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (extend a machine's expiry time) that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like htb_machine_stop, htb_machine_reset, or htb_machine_start. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

Gives one concrete usage rule — omit target to act on the active machine — but says nothing about when to extend versus reset, restart, or stop a machine. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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