osd_reweight

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

Without annotations, the description reveals key traits: it is a WRITE operation with medium risk, reversible via prior weight, and the effect of weight=0.0 as a full drain. It does not cover side effects or required permissions, but adds useful behavioral context.

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 succinct, starting with a clear [WRITE][risk=medium] tag, followed by a concise one-liner, then a well-organized 'Args:' list. No unnecessary text; every sentence adds value.

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 operation, parameters, and basic risk. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., OSD existence), potential consequences like data migration, or return value expectation. Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it is mostly complete but could add more context for safe usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: osd_id's source (osd_tree), weight's range and effect, and target's optionality with default behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 'Set an OSD's reweight' with details on behavior (0.0 drains, reversible). This distinguishes it from siblings like osd_mark_in/out and osd_purge, though it does not explicitly compare them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., osd_mark_out for draining). The description only explains what the tool does, not the context for its use.

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