trigger_deep_scrub

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does include '[WRITE][risk=medium]', indicating the operation mutates state and carries some risk, and it notes this schedules a scrub rather than instantly performing a read. However, it does not describe side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens after scheduling, so full transparency is missing.

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 compact, front-loaded with the write/risk tag, then gives a one-line purpose and two clearly formatted argument explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the example is useful without bloating the text.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: purpose, parameter meanings, example values, and default behavior. The main gaps are the lack of output/return behavior and more explicit side-effect information, but these are minor for a scheduling action with this level of argument detail.

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%, and the description fully compensates: it explains pgid as a Placement group id with a concrete example and a source reference, and explains target as a Ceph config name with default behavior. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific action: schedule a deep (data-integrity) scrub on a PG. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling trigger_scrub by making the 'deep' aspect explicit. The '[WRITE]' and 'risk=medium' prefix add further operational clarity.

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 gives clear context on how to use the tool: it tells the agent that pgid comes from pg_summary / scrub_status and that target should be omitted for the default. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus trigger_scrub, so it stops short of a 5.

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