pcs_resource_ban

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the command syntax and does not explain the side effects of banning a resource, such as creating a location constraint, whether the ban is persistent, whether special permissions are required, or how it can be reversed. For a mutating operation this is a significant gap.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the action and target. The command syntax is useful and there is no filler or redundant content.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description covers only the core command shape. It omits behavioral context such as what the ban does in the cluster, expected outcomes, failure modes, or how this differs from related constraints. An agent could invoke it based on the schema, but not fully understand the consequences.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the command-level argument ordering and marks lifetime as optional, but it does not materially add meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Ban'), a clear resource ('a resource'), and a scope ('from a node'), and it gives the exact pcs command syntax. This separates it from sibling operations like move, clear, enable, disable, and unban by naming the ban operation explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcs_resource_move, pcs_resource_clear, or pcs_resource_unban. The usage context is only implicit in the word 'ban'; there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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