pd_failover

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully discloses behavior: it is a write operation with high risk, destructive, supports dry-run preview, and references optional audit annotations for who/why. This is comprehensive for a destructive tool.

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 well-structured with a header line, warning, and Args section. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. The front line immediately states purpose and risk.

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, the description covers input thoroughly. It lacks details on the return value of a real failover, but for a DR tool, the focus on input and safety is appropriate.

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%, but the description explains all four parameters: source of policy_ext_id (from protection_domain_list), cluster_ext_id (from cluster_list), effect of dry_run, and target default. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: failover a protection domain to a target cluster for DR. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the context of DR distinguishes it from sibling tools like snapshot_list or vm_migrate.

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 passing dry_run=True to preview and notes the destructive nature, providing context for safe usage. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but the DR event context is clear.

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