devtools_deploy_openstack_operator_cr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the operation 'modifies the cluster' and that confirm must be true, which is important safety context. However, it does not explain the broader side effects of bootstrapping services, reversibility, or consequences beyond cluster modification.

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 structured and the main purpose is front-loaded, but it contains redundancy: the first sentence says 'bootstrap services' and USECASE repeats 'Bootstrap the RHOSO services'. TOOL_NAME and DISPLAY_NAME also duplicate the tool name/title. It is understandable but not maximally lean.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential invocation signals: purpose, prerequisite, confirmation requirement, output fields, and related tool. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call the tool correctly, though it could clarify exactly what the CR deployment will create or change in the cluster.

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%—the only parameter 'confirm' has no schema description. The description compensates well by stating 'confirm (bool) — must be true' and providing an example call with confirm=True, which tells the agent the key constraint and expected usage.

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 the action: 'Deploy the OpenStack operator CR to bootstrap services.' It identifies the specific resource (operator CR) and purpose (bootstrap RHOSO services). It is distinguishable from the sibling devtools_deploy_openstack_operator by the 'CR' scope, though it does not explicitly contrast the two.

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 context: use this to bootstrap RHOSO services via the operator CR, and lists a prerequisite ('OpenStack operator deployed'). It also names a related tool, devtools_deploy_openstack_operator, which helps an agent understand sequencing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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