cordon_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is a write operation with medium risk, describes the effect (node unschedulable), and notes the dry_run preview behavior. It does not detail auth needs or side effects beyond the basic operation.

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 very concise: one line for purpose, one line for dry_run, then a structured args list. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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 write tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and key parameter semantics. It mentions the inverse and preview option. It could mention the return value (likely success status) but not required.

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 description must explain parameters. It explains 'name' (node name from node_list), 'dry_run' (preview without cordoning), and 'target' (k8s target name). The explanations are helpful though target is somewhat vague.

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 action: 'Mark a node unschedulable (no new pods land).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and also mentions the inverse tool for context.

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 mentions the inverse tool (uncordon_node) and explains the dry_run option for preview. It implicitly tells when to use this tool (to cordon a node), but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like drain_node.

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