pool_scrub_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It declares '[WRITE]' and 'Non-destructive,' notes the absence of an undo descriptor, and implies asynchronous behavior via 'Poll progress.' This is transparent and honest about side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded: purpose first, then behavioral notes, then args. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words or repetition of schema defaults.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the operation's outcome, next steps (scrub_status), and all parameter details. It also mentions the non-reversible nature, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 the inline Args section is essential. It fully explains each parameter: pool_name format with example, dry_run semantics, and target's role. This compensates completely for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Start a scrub (integrity check) on a pool,' identifying the specific action and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like scrub_status (monitoring) and pool_list/pool_get (listing).

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 explicitly instructs to 'Poll progress with scrub_status; do not re-issue,' providing both an alternative and a when-not. It also mentions dry_run preview, giving clear usage context.

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