local_ydb_bootstrap_root_database

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

Annotations show idempotentHint: true, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: without confirm=true it returns a preflight/plan without execution. This adds value beyond the annotations, though it could state explicitly that the operation is idempotent or what happens on conflict.

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?

Two sentences: first states the purpose, second adds usage context and behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 low complexity (3 optional params, no output schema, good annotations), the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and preflight behavior. It does not detail return format or error scenarios, but that is acceptable for this level of tool.

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%, so baseline 3. The description reinforces the confirm parameter's effect, but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own description. No new parameters are explained.

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 the tool bootstraps a plain local YDB database at /local with only a static node, and specifies it is for 'generic local database requests' without CMS tenant, GraphShard, or dynamic nodes. This verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like local_ydb_create_tenant or local_ydb_bootstrap.

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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool (generic requests needing only a static node) and what happens without confirm=true (returns a plan). It does not name alternative tools but implies them by exclusion criteria, which is sufficient given the sibling list.

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