local_ydb_bootstrap_root_database

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: plan-only execution without confirm=true, and precise container reuse conditions (image, network, data mount, port bindings, environment, restart policy, disabled healthcheck must match). This aligns with idempotentHint=true and adds significant practical context.

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 but packed with essential information: purpose, usage scope, reuse criteria, and execution gate. Every clause serves a purpose with no filler.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: target resource, scope vs siblings, operational behavior (plan/execute), and reuse conditions. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 already provides 100% parameter descriptions, including the confirm parameter's plan-only behavior. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema contains, so a baseline score of 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 states the specific action ('Bootstrap a plain local YDB database at /local with only a static node') with a clear verb, resource, and scoping constraint. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it is for requests that do not need a CMS tenant, GraphShard, or dynamic nodes.

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 for generic local database requests that do not need a CMS tenant, GraphShard, or dynamic nodes.' This defines both when to use the tool and implicitly when not to use it, distinguishing it from sibling tools like local_ydb_create_tenant and local_ydb_bootstrap.

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