osd_purge

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds material context: the operation is explicitly "Irreversible," it names the exact underlying steps (destroy + crush rm + auth del), and it documents the dry_run escape hatch. This exceeds the annotation bar with concrete destructive-behavior detail.

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 a [WRITE][risk=high] tag, then the core action, then the safety prerequisite, then a clean Args block. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, irreversibility, prerequisites, and parameter semantics well. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe failure/partial-failure behavior across the three sub-operations (destroy/crush/auth), which would matter for a multi-step purge.

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 must carry the burden — and it does: osd_id ("Numeric OSD id (from osd_tree)"), dry_run ("preview without purging"), and target ("Ceph target name from config; omit for the default"). All three parameters gain meaning absent from the bare 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 ("Purge an OSD") and immediately unpacks what purging means ("destroy + crush rm + auth del"), which is far more specific than the tool name alone. It is easily distinguishable from the many read-only siblings (osd_tree, osd_df) and the milder mutation siblings (osd_mark_out, osd_reweight).

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 an explicit prerequisite sequence: "Drain first (osd_reweight 0 → mark out → wait active+clean) before purging," naming the sibling tools involved. It also points to the safe alternative ("Pass dry_run=True to preview"), so both when-to-use and how-to-de-risk are covered.

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