reinstall_server

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description elaborates on the specific destructive effects ('wipes ALL server files', 'permanently deleted'), mentions prerequisites ('Requires Application API key'), and advises on a precautionary step ('Consider create_backup'). This provides actionable insights not covered by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and warning, followed by critical details and prerequisites. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second details the destructive impact, the third advises backup consideration, and the fourth specifies authentication requirements. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 the tool's high complexity (destructive admin action) and lack of output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, severe consequences, prerequisites, and a safety recommendation. The annotations provide additional structured hints, but the description fills in critical behavioral gaps, making it sufficient for informed use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'server_id' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format or usage examples. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('reinstall a server's egg/template') and identifies it as an 'admin action', which distinguishes it from non-admin tools like list_servers or update_server_details. It explicitly mentions the resource (server) and the scope (egg/template reinstallation), avoiding tautology with the tool name.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('admin action') and when not to use it without precautions ('Consider create_backup before proceeding'). It also implicitly suggests alternatives by warning about data loss, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools like create_backup directly. The context is clear and includes exclusions.

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