osd_mark_out

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and clearly discloses the write operation, high risk, destructive nature (recovery storm, min_size risk), and the need for an approver under a graduated-autonomy policy. This is comprehensive.

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 well-structured with a warning prefix and docstring-style argument list. It is efficient but slightly verbose with the full arg list; could be slightly more concise but remains clear.

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 input parameters and the destructive effect well. However, it omits the return value or success indicator. Given that it is a write tool with no output schema, the missing output description slightly reduces completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters: osd_id (source from osd_tree), dry_run (preview effect), and target (Ceph target name, can be omitted). This adds significant value beyond the schema types.

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 ('Mark an OSD out') and resource ('OSD'), with the specific effect of draining data. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like osd_mark_in (reverse operation) and osd_purge (deletion after drain).

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 strong usage context: it warns about destructive redundancy, recommends dry_run=True for preview, and notes the approval requirement. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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