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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it is privileged, not cleanly reversible, briefly disrupts workloads, requires confirmation, and only runs a curated recovery plan rather than arbitrary commands. It also discloses the internal flow (classify, apply matched fix, verify, retry once).

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and scope lead, followed by behavioral caveats and routing. The parenthetical enumeration of recovery fixes is long, but each clause conveys decision-relevant information rather than filler.

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 privileged, complex, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, safety posture, prerequisites, exclusions, and internal behavior. Nothing an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents the four identifiers. The description adds preference ordering ('node_id (preferred) or node_name'), which is genuinely useful, though it does not touch cluster_id/cluster_name (already covered by the schema as optional).

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 precise verb+resource (repair one Kubernetes node at the OS level over SSH-via-bastion) and enumerates the exact curated recovery actions performed. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ssh_diagnose_node (a diagnostic prerequisite) and restart_node (for bastion-unreachable nodes).

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 an explicit prerequisite ('Always call ssh_diagnose_node first to confirm the node is broken at the OS level') and names the alternative for a different condition ('not merely unreachable via bastion, which a node reboot - restart_node - addresses instead'). It also states hard exclusions (imported/managed-Kubernetes clusters, Proxmox/HPE Morpheus).

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