devtools_configure_lvm_cluster

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Modifies the cluster,' requires the confirm parameter to be true, and lists status, stdout, stderr, and exit_code as outputs. It could detail side effects or reversibility more, but it is adequately transparent for a configuration action.

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 core purpose is one concise sentence, and the auxiliary details are organized into labeled metadata lines that are easy to scan. Minor redundancy exists in TOOL_NAME and DISPLAY_NAME lines duplicating the tool name, but the overall structure remains efficient.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usecase, prerequisites, related tool, input semantics, expected output shape, and an example. With a dedicated output schema present and no nested objects, nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has a single confirm boolean with no property description, but the description compensates with 'INPUT_DESCRIPTION=confirm (bool) — must be true' and an example showing confirm=True. This fully clarifies the parameter's required value and bridges the gap left by 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 states 'Configure the LVMCluster device class' and the USECASE explicitly says 'Register storage devices with the LVM operator. Modifies the cluster.' This clearly identifies the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like devtools_install_lvm_operator.

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 provides PREREQUISITES (SNO_LVM_DEVICES set and LVM operator installed) and RELATED_TOOLS pointing to devtools_install_lvm_operator, establishing when this tool should be used. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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