local_ydb_bootstrap_root_database

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that the tool returns a preflight plan when confirm is false and executes when true, plus specifies what it bootstraps (database at /local with static node). 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action (bootstrap) and usage condition, no redundant words.

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?

Description differentiates from numerous sibling tools, mentions what the plan includes (image preflight, Docker network/storage/static-node, verification plan), and provides enough context for selection despite lack of output schema.

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?

Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions; the description adds context for the confirm parameter but does not elaborate on profile or configPath beyond the schema.

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 distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it is for generic requests not needing 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 explicitly says when to use this tool (generic local database requests without CMS tenant, GraphShard, dynamic nodes) and explains the effect of the confirm parameter (returns plan without execution if false).

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