set_pool_size

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses high risk, forces mass data movement, is reversible to prior size, supports dry_run, and enforces the refusal of size reduction on mgr-owned pools even under dry_run. This is exceptionally transparent about side effects and constraints.

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 longer than average but well-structured: a bolded risk prefix, a concise summary, detailed behavioral notes, and a clear Args section. It is front-loaded with the key point and risk. Every sentence adds value, though some minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating refusal conditions in summary and details). Overall it's appropriately sized for a high-risk mutation.

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 tool's complexity (high-risk, live cluster, conditional refusals), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the operation's effect, reversibility, dry-run behavior, special pool restrictions, and all parameter semantics. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without additional research.

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 fully explain parameters. It does: pool_name is 'from pool_ls', size is 'New replica count', dry_run 'preview without changing', target 'Ceph target name from config; omit for the default'. This adds practical meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Set a pool's replica size'. It further specifies it operates on a live pool and forces mass data movement, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_pool_quota or set_pool_pg_num. Even without naming alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 contrast with sibling tools or state when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does provide contextual guidance: dry_run for preview, and it warns against reducing size on mgr-owned pools. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' / 'when not to use' guidance relative to other pool-setting tools, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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