cluster_configure

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) establish the write/safety profile, so the description carries a lower burden but still adds real value: it discloses the return contract ('status string naming what changed'), the partial-update behavior (untouched settings remain), and the conditional dependency of drs_behavior on DRS being enabled. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler. Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, the return contract and delta semantics follow, and the conditional caveat closes. Every sentence earns its place, and the [WRITE] tag is a compact one-token signal. No redundancy with schema content.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential decision-making surface: what it changes, how partial updates work, what it returns, and how to verify the result. Notable omissions are prerequisites (e.g., cluster must exist) and any caveat about side effects of disabling HA/DRS on running workloads, but these are minor given the rich schema and output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 given every parameter (ha, drs, name, target, drs_behavior) already has a schema description. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by stating the delta semantics ('None leaves a setting untouched', reinforcing the nullable defaults) and the conditional rule that drs_behavior only applies when DRS is enabled — information absent from the input 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 ('Reconfigure') and a concrete resource ('cluster HA/DRS settings'), which clearly separates this mutation tool from cluster_create, cluster_delete, and cluster_info. The [WRITE] tag reinforces the mutation intent. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the verb+resource combo leaves little ambiguity.

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 usage semantics: 'Pass only the fields to change; None leaves a setting untouched' defines the delta update pattern, and 'verify with cluster_info' routes the agent to the correct read-side sibling. The precondition 'drs_behavior applies only when DRS is enabled' is a genuine guardrail. It doesn't explicitly state when to use cluster_create instead, but 'reconfigure' makes that boundary implied.

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