cluster_flag_set

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation (low risk), reversible, and records an undo action. This goes beyond a simple 'set' verbs. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately informs the agent of the behavioral traits.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, followed by usage context, reversibility note, then a clear bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and parameters well, but does not mention return values or whether the operation is idempotent. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should ideally explain what the function returns (e.g., success, new flag state). This gap limits completeness for an AI agent.

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 description adds full semantic meaning to all three parameters: 'flag' with examples, 'enable' with truth condition, and 'target' with default behavior. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description completely compensates, providing far more context than the schema alone.

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 explicitly states the action ('Set/unset a cluster flag') and the resource ('cluster flag'), with examples like noout. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with health, status, OSDs, pools, etc. The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous.

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 a concrete use case: 'Heavily used before maintenance (e.g. set noout while rebooting a host).' It also notes reversibility, implying it's safe to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though no direct sibling conflicts exist.

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