throttle_recovery

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

Annotations declare write/destructive/non-idempotent, and the description adds value beyond them by stating the change is reversible and that an undo record snapshotting the prior values is created. It also flags medium risk. It stops short of detailing auth requirements or side effects on in-flight recovery ops.

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?

Risk/write tag and the core action are front-loaded, the rationale sentence is compact, and the arg list is tight with no redundant restatement of the schema. Every line earns its place.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger condition, mutability of each param, and rollback path. Remaining gaps are value ranges and any post-call verification guidance, both minor.

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: all three params are explained, including the 'omit to leave unchanged' semantics that are not expressed in the schema defaults. Units/ranges for the integer values are still unspecified.

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 ('Tune') and names the exact config knobs (osd_max_backfills / osd_recovery_max_active) it mutates. This is unmistakably distinct from read-only siblings like osd_perf or cluster_status.

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 a clear when-to-use scenario: turn backfill/recovery down when a recovery storm starves client IO, or back up once it's calm. It does not name an explicit alternative tool, but no sibling overlaps this tuning action, so context is sufficient.

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