pcs_resource_cleanup

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it only says 'cleanup' without explaining that this is a mutating operation that resets failcounts/failure history and could influence resource placement. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a production-cluster command.

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 and front-loads the action before the command syntax. It is appropriately concise, though brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral context.

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 mutating Pacemaker command with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete: it lacks side effects, prerequisites, and differentiation from pcs_resource_clear. The schema covers connection parameters, but not operational semantics.

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 already documents all six parameters with descriptions, so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, though it echoes the key 'resource or all' behavior.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Run cleanup'), a resource target, and the exact CLI invocation, so an agent can infer this is the resource-cleanup operation. It does not define what cleanup does (reset failcounts/failure history) nor contrast itself with the similarly named sibling pcs_resource_clear.

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 given on when to invoke cleanup versus the closely related clear/restart/enable operations. The description only states the command and leaves the situational context to the agent.

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