pcs_resource_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool does not directly move the resource but creates a temporary location constraint, which is non-obvious. However, it does not mention side effects on the cluster, whether the constraint persists until cleared, or whether the move is asynchronous.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core behavior and then provides the exact command syntax. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema information.

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 cluster-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits usage context, cleanup/lifecycle implications, potential prerequisites like a running cluster, and any distinction from related constraint-management siblings.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 because all parameters are already documented. The description only lightly echoes the <id> and <node> placeholders and adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific action: 'Create a temporary location constraint via pcs resource move <id> [<node>]', which goes beyond the tool name by explaining the underlying mechanism. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like pcs_resource_clear or pcs_resource_ban, though it does not explicitly contrast against them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcs_resource_ban, pcs_resource_clear, or pcs_resource_restart. The phrase 'temporary location constraint' implies a preferred use case, but the description never states when not to use it or what cleanup might be required.

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