local_ydb_bootstrap

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses detailed execution behavior: node start order, readiness checks (container ID, RestartCount), reuse conditions for static container, and plan-only mode. This exceeds what annotations provide and is highly informative.

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 densely informative without fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then logically flows through preconditions, execution order, readiness checks, and usage constraints. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral nuances, and the plan-only mode. It sufficiently compensates for the lack of output schema by explaining the plan execution semantics.

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 covers 100% of parameters with adequate descriptions. The description adds crucial semantics for 'confirm' (must be true to execute, otherwise plan-only) and references profile/configPath indirectly. This additional context elevates it above the baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states 'Bootstrap a tenant topology' with specific components (GraphShard flags, loopback bindings, CMS tenant, dynamic nodes). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_tenant or start_dynamic_node by describing the full bootstrap process.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use only for tenant, GraphShard, dump/restore, or dynamic-node scenarios; without confirm=true this returns the full plan and creates nothing.' It also mentions prerequisites (distinct container names, port validity) which guide when to invoke.

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