set_pool_pg_num

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions '[WRITE]' and 'Reversible → prior pg_num', but fails to disclose important traits such as required permissions, potential data migration, or asynchronous behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, with a one-line summary and a bulleted list of arguments. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given that this is a write operation with no output schema, the description lacks crucial details such as the return value, potential side effects (e.g., data rebalancing), and performance implications. The mention of reversibility is helpful, but overall the description is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description provides explanations for all three parameters. It adds context like 'Pool name (from pool_ls)' and 'Ceph target name from config; omit for the default', which aids understanding beyond the raw 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 clearly states 'Set a pool's pg_num', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_pool_autoscale, set_pool_quota, and set_pool_size, which modify different pool properties.

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 does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, the tool name and description imply it is for adjusting placement group count, which differentiates it from siblings. No alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is minimal.

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