skypilot_kubernetes_label_gpus

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It correctly discloses the NVIDIA-only limitation and that cleanup_only removes resources, plus that a request_id is returned. It does not say whether the labeling mutates cluster state persistently, whether it requires elevated permissions, or what the request_id is used for beyond this tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the constraints. No filler. Slightly terse given the parameter gap, but structurally efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is optional and the request_id mention suffices. Still, for a mutating cluster operation with two entirely undocumented parameters and no stated prerequisites or scope of effect, the description is only minimally adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It only explains cleanup_only. context and wait_for_completion are left completely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and defaults.

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?

States a specific verb (Label) and resource (GPU nodes in a Kubernetes cluster), and names the integration context (SkyPilot). Could be sharper about which nodes get labeled, but it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like skypilot_kubernetes_node_info (read-only inspection) or skypilot_status_kubernetes.

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 mention of cleanup_only=True removes labeling resources provides an implied when-to-use path, and the NVIDIA-only scope narrows applicability. However, it never states prerequisites (e.g., kubectl access, target cluster selection) or when to prefer alternatives such as skypilot_kubernetes_node_info.

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