devtools_deploy_openstack_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Modifies the cluster' and that confirm 'must be true', which identifies the mutating nature and a guard. It does not detail idempotency, failure behavior, or what happens if confirm is false, but the core side effect is disclosed.

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 and front-loads the main action before structured metadata lines. Some redundancy exists between the first sentence and USECASE, but overall each line adds useful information without unnecessary prose.

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 a single parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description provides substantial context: purpose, side effects, required input, output fields, an example, prerequisites, and a related tool. It lacks only explicit decision guidance and failure semantics, but is otherwise 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly says 'confirm (bool) — must be true', which conveys the required value and that it acts as a confirmation gate, going beyond the bare schema's type and default. It does not explain the consequence of false, but the requirement is clear.

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 a specific verb ('Deploy') and resource ('OpenStack dependencies'), enumerates the exact components (Cert-manager, MetalLB, NMState), and further clarifies the use case as 'Install the operators RHOSO depends on.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like devtools_deploy_openstack_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 implies usage context through 'Install the operators RHOSO depends on' and lists RELATED_TOOLS=devtools_deploy_openstack_operator, suggesting a sequence. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion conditions.

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