local_ydb_add_dynamic_nodes

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, while the description details the two-phase behavior, return of container/port plans, start with verification steps, and tenant metadata checks. This adds significant context beyond annotations with no contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds essential information: the first identifies what the tool does, the second explains the two modes and verification. No superfluous text.

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 (8 parameters, two modes), the description covers the key behaviors and verification steps. While it hints at return values (plans), lacks detailed output format. Without an output schema, this is generally sufficient but could mention what plans contain.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description reinforces the plan/execute mode via confirm parameter but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it adds extra dynamic tenant nodes beyond the primary node, specifying the one-at-a-time behavior. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning primary dynamic node and plan/execute modes, but could more explicitly differentiate from local_ydb_start_dynamic_node.

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 explains the two-phase usage (plan only with confirm=false, execute with confirm=true) and the verification process. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_dynamic_node, nor does it list prerequisites or when not to use.

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