uncordon_node

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lacks information about idempotency (is uncordoning a non-cordoned node a no-op?), required permissions, side effects on workloads, or status codes. The description only states the effect without behavioral nuance.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks important usage and behavioral information. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness, resulting in a minimum viable description.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a single-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or how 'dryRun' simulation works in practice. The description is too sparse for an agent to use reliably.

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 three parameters are fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate, as the schema already conveys parameter semantics.

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 'Marks a node as schedulable' clearly states the action (marks), the resource (node), and the resulting state (schedulable). This directly contrasts with the sibling 'cordon_node', which marks a node as unschedulable.

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?

No usage context is provided. The description does not explain when to uncordon vs. cordon, prerequisite conditions (e.g., node must be cordoned first), or consequences. This forces the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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