set_pool_size

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly marks the tool as [WRITE][risk=high], states that it forces mass data movement, mentions reversibility ('Reversible → prior size'), and notes the approval requirement. This provides strong behavioral transparency, though it could mention potential side effects like performance impact.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then lists critical behavioral notes, and ends with clear parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, 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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, explains the approval requirement, dry-run capability, reversibility, and the high-risk nature. An agent has sufficient information to decide when and how to use this 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly: 'pool_name' is linked to 'pool_ls', 'size' is described as 'New replica count', 'dry_run' is explained with its preview behavior, and 'target' is described as a Ceph target from config. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 the tool's primary action: 'Set a pool's replica size'. It also mentions the consequence ('forces mass data movement on a live pool'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'set_pool_autoscale' or 'set_pool_quota'. The verb 'Set' and the specific resource 'pool's replica size' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool (to set replica size) and provides important usage context: requires an approver under the graduated-autonomy policy and supports a dry-run mode. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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