propose_cluster_rebind

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not describe any side effects, permissions, return behavior, or differences from the aliased tool. The sole behavioral hint is that it is an alias, which is insufficient.

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 very short (10 words) but fails to be appropriately sized because it omits essential information. Front-loading is fine, but brevity here comes at the cost of completeness; each sentence does not earn its place due to missing 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?

Given the tool's complexity (an alias for another tool with an output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the rebinding concept, the effect of 'propose', or how to interpret the output. The existing output schema and sibling tools do not compensate for this lack of context.

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 0%, and the tool description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'cluster_slug'. The parameter's purpose and expected format are completely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess.

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 it's a deprecated alias for cluster_rebind with a specific action, so the verb-resource pairing is clear. However, it does not explain what 'propose' entails or what rebinding means, which limits clarity for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 mentions it is deprecated, implying it should not be used, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cluster_rebind directly). No context on prerequisites or use cases.

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