pcs_resource_unban

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 intended action but does not mention side effects, such as the resource becoming eligible to run again, permission requirements, or success/failure behavior. For a mutating operation, this is a significant 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 sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately concise, though it could have used a code block or slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 schema fully documents parameter semantics, so the invocation is straightforward. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain return values, prerequisites, or post-conditions. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an autonomous agent deciding whether the operation succeeded or what side effects occurred.

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?

All 7 parameters are already fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's command template reinforces the role of the resource and optional node parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb and object — 'Remove a ban for a resource' — which clearly distinguishes it from pcs_resource_ban and other resource actions. It also includes the exact CLI command pattern, adding execution detail beyond the tool name. It is slightly tautological since the name already conveys 'unban', but it still clarifies the resource scope.

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?

The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcs_resource_clear, pcs_resource_enable, or pcs_resource_ban. There is no explicit context about when a ban should be removed or what conditions make this the right choice. The only guidance is implied by the command name and syntax.

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