reclaim_spot_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses that rentals and inference stop, that a spot rental terminates two minutes later, and that the renter is notified. It does not say what the tool returns or whether the call can fail for non-spot or busy nodes, leaving a small gap for a destructive operation.

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?

Front-loads the action, then consequences, then constraints, then the reverse action — a sound ordering with no filler sentences. The nested parentheses and all-caps emphasis make it denser than necessary and slightly harder to scan.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the consequential behavior (rentals off, two-minute termination, renter notified), the safety gate (confirm first), and the cleanup path. Only the return value and failure modes are unaddressed.

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% and the description never explains node_id — but with a single, self-evidently named identifier parameter the risk of misuse is low. The description compensates indirectly by telling the agent the node must be a spot node, which is the only real semantic constraint on the input.

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 and resource ("take a spot node back for the owner's own use") and immediately scopes it ("Only for spot nodes"). It also names the sibling operation that reverses it (set_node_available), so an agent can distinguish this from generic node-management tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit about when it applies ("Only for spot nodes"), what must precede it ("Always confirm with the user first"), and what must follow it ("Put the node back afterwards with set_node_available(true)"). This is a complete use/reverse lifecycle with no inference required.

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