osd_mark_out

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is set; the description goes further by naming the concrete risks (recovery storm, min_size breach) and the dry_run escape hatch. It does not state whether the action is reversible or whether it requires cluster-health preconditions.

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 tag and consequence before the args block; every line adds information. Minor redundancy in restating param names, though that restatement is justified given zero schema coverage.

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 high-risk mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, its risk, the preview path, and every parameter. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 it does, documenting all three params: osd_id as a numeric id sourced from osd_tree, dry_run as a preview switch, and target as a Ceph config name that can be omitted. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 ('Mark an OSD out') and immediately names the consequence ('drains its data'), which separates it cleanly from siblings like osd_mark_in, osd_reweight, and osd_purge. The [WRITE][risk=high] tag further classifies it upfront.

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 clear context for when to invoke (draining an OSD) and points to osd_tree as the source of osd_id, plus recommends dry_run=True to preview. It stops short of naming the inverse tool (osd_mark_in) or the operational precondition (cluster must tolerate the reduced redundancy).

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