cluster_flag_set

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the write profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the operation is reversible because it records an undo that toggles the flag back, pointing to the undo_list/undo_apply siblings. It doesn't note permission requirements or blast radius, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag, then purpose, usage, and an Args block — logical and easy to parse. The Args block largely restates parameter names already visible in the schema, so a little space is not fully earned.

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?

With 3 params, one required, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs: what the flag does, when to use it, and reversibility. Missing only edge details such as valid flag enumeration and target resolution.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: flag examples, enable=True/False semantics (set vs clear), and target as a Ceph target omitted for the default. The flag list is truncated with an ellipsis and target's valid values are left vague ('from config'), so coverage is good but not exhaustive.

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 (set/unset a cluster flag) and immediately enumerates concrete flag values (noout/nobackfill/norecover/noscrub). No sibling tool manipulates cluster flags, so an agent can distinguish this instantly from the status/list siblings.

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 a clear usage context — 'heavily used before maintenance (e.g. set noout while rebooting a host)' — which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g. vs osd_mark_out or a config change), so it falls short of a 5.

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