pcs_resource_clear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation but does not disclose side effects, scope of cleared constraints/failures, idempotency, required privileges, or whether this is destructive. For a mutating tool this is a meaningful transparency 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The inline command syntax is slightly redundant with the tool name but is short and useful for grounding the operation.

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 that this is a mutating command with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what happens after clearing, what prerequisites exist, or how the operation interacts with cluster state, leaving an agent under-equipped for error handling and validation.

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 schema already documents all six parameters. The description only echoes the resource parameter via the command syntax and adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 action ('clear') applied to a resource and states the effect ('temporary constraints and failures'). It is more specific than a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like pcs_resource_cleanup by mentioning constraints as well as failures, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be preferred over related tools such as pcs_resource_cleanup, pcs_resource_unban, or pcs_resource_disable. The description implies a recovery scenario but provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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