uncordon_node

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint false), destructiveHint true, and non-idempotent. The description adds the [WRITE][risk=medium] tags, the inverse relationship, and the dry_run preview capability, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations; it stops short of permission or side-effect detail.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: write/risk tag, purpose, inverse, dry-run note, then a parameter list. The only redundancy is dry_run appearing twice, which is conventional for an Args block.

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 write tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly: purpose, inverse, dry-run preview, and each parameter. It omits permissions and the exact effect on already-schedulable nodes, but those are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains all three parameters: name (with a pointer to node_list), dry_run (preview behavior), and target (k8s target name from config). The target definition is thin, but overall it compensates for the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark a node schedulable again') and explicitly names the sibling it inverts ('Inverse: cordon_node'), so an agent can distinguish it from cordon_node and drain_node without opening schemas.

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?

Provides clear context: use to reverse a cordon, with dry_run for preview. It does not state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the inverse relationship, but routing is implied by the inverse label.

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