cluster_flag_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the risk level ('[risk=medium]'), that it is a write operation, and that it is reversible with an undo record. This gives an agent sufficient awareness of side effects and reversibility, though it doesn't detail potential permission requirements or edge cases.

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 efficient and well-structured. The purpose and usage context are front-loaded, followed by a concise bulleted argument list. No wasted words, and the key information is immediately accessible.

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 simple flag toggle with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral details (reversible). It doesn't discuss error handling or preconditions, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity. Overall, an agent can call it correctly with the provided information.

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 the description must fully compensate. It does: each parameter is explained with examples and clear semantics (flag names, enable toggling, target defaulting). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, making the parameters unambiguous.

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 action (set/unset), the resource (cluster flag), and provides concrete examples (noout, nobackfill, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools like set_pool_* which modify pool settings, so an agent can identify the correct tool.

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?

It gives a specific usage context: 'Heavily used before maintenance (e.g. set noout while rebooting a host).' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context implies a maintenance scenario and no alternatives are needed since it's the only flag-toggle tool among siblings.

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