local_ydb_add_dynamic_nodes

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by detailing the preflight checks, image ID matching, failure semantics ('a mismatch stops that node and all later nodes and requires destroy followed by bootstrap'), and the confirm-mode flow. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 dense but every sentence delivers critical operational detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically covers constraints, failure behavior, and output expectations. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains exactly what to expect in plan-only vs confirm mode (container/port plans vs stable running containers). It also covers prerequisites, failure recovery, and the network namespace constraints. For a complex mutation tool with 8 parameters and no structured output, this is fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds context on how parameters interact, such as the constraint that startIndex must be greater than dynamicNodeCount and the uniqueness requirement for ports in the shared network namespace. It also explains the plan-vs-confirm behavior tied to the confirm parameter, but most parameter-specific constraints are already in the schema, so it adds moderate value.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Add'), a precise resource ('one-off dynamic tenant nodes beyond the declarative profile.dynamicNodeCount topology'), and a qualification ('one at a time'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remove_dynamic_nodes or start_dynamic_node without needing to open their schemas.

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?

It defines its scope by contrasting with the declarative topology ('beyond the declarative profile.dynamicNodeCount'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., local_ydb_start_dynamic_node) or state exclusion conditions, leaving some inference to the agent. This is a clear context with a minor gap in explicit routing.

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