cluster_create

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation and not idempotent, so the description adds value by disclosing failure behavior: it fails with a clear error and no partial state if the name exists or drs_behavior is invalid. It also discloses the return value as a status string naming enabled features, going beyond the structured fields.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes: purpose, failure/atomicity behavior, related workflow, and return value. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with six parameters and a full schema, the description supplies the critical non-schema context: failure conditions, no partial state, follow-up sibling operations, and the shape of the returned status. Combined with the rich schema and output schema, an agent has everything it needs to invoke this correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter and its defaults. The description adds a bit of semantic context by warning that invalid drs_behavior causes failure and that HA/DRS are optional, but it does not significantly expand on the parameter meanings already provided.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new empty cluster in a datacenter, optionally enabling HA and DRS.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating the cluster is empty and by explicitly connecting to cluster_add_host, cluster_configure, and cluster_info for subsequent actions.

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 gives explicit usage context: use this to create an empty cluster, then add hosts with cluster_add_host, modify HA/DRS with cluster_configure, and verify with cluster_info. It names the alternatives and indicates the sequencing, which leaves little to inference.

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