osd_mark_in

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

The description includes [WRITE] and [risk=medium] tags indicating a mutagenic operation with moderate risk, but does not detail prerequisites, reversibility, or potential side effects. Without annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus an Args block with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and risk tags.

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 purpose and parameters adequately, but lacks usage guidance, behavioral depth (e.g., prerequisites, failure modes), and any mention of output, leaving gaps for a medium-risk write operation.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: osd_id is a numeric OSD ID from osd_tree, and target is an optional Ceph target name. This compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 'Mark an OSD in (return a drained/repaired OSD to service)' with a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tool osd_mark_out provides context for differentiation.

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 implies usage after draining or repairing an OSD but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives beyond the operation itself.

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