drain_node

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the write/high-risk nature, partial reversibility, pod-skipping behavior, and dry-run capability. No hidden behaviors remain.

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?

Extremely concise: a concise summary line, then structured details in paragraphs and an Args list. Every sentence adds value; 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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, risk, parameter meanings, behavioral nuances (skipped pods, partial undo), and usage pattern (dry-run). It is self-contained and sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description includes an Args section explaining `name`, `dry_run`, and `target` with sufficient detail (e.g., 'Node name (see node_list)', 'preview without cordoning or evicting'). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 does both cordoning and eviction ('Cordon a node and evict its pods'). It distinguishes from siblings like `cordon_node` (cordon only) and `uncordon_node` (reversal). The high-risk warning adds specificity.

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?

Explicit guidance: notes that DaemonSet and mirror pods are skipped (like `kubectl drain`), that cordon is reversible via `uncordon_node` while evictions are not, and recommends `dry_run=True` for preview. This helps an agent decide when to use and how to proceed safely.

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