local_ydb_start_dynamic_node

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

The description details the preflight checks, plan-only mode without confirm, and failure conditions (e.g., rejecting name aliases and port collisions). It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and provides more context than the annotations alone.

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 overly verbose and repetitive. It contains three separate sentences that essentially describe the same plan/check/execution flow with redundant phrasing (e.g., 'Before returning or executing...', 'After checking...', 'The dynamic container is created but not started...'). This could be condensed significantly without losing meaning.

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?

The description covers the core action, when to use it, and the plan mode, which is adequate given the tool's complexity. However, it does not explain what 'primary' means in this context, nor does it mention any output or return value (though no output schema is provided). It is complete enough but not exceptional.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (confirm, profile, configPath) with 100% coverage. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema states, such as the plan-only behavior of confirm.

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 action: 'Start the configured primary dynamic tenant node for an existing CMS tenant.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like local_ydb_add_dynamic_nodes (which adds nodes) and local_ydb_create_tenant (which creates the tenant). The verb and resource are specific.

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 it: 'Use after local_ydb_create_tenant or when admin status is PENDING_RESOURCES' and when to use an alternative: 'use local_ydb_add_dynamic_nodes for extra nodes.' This provides clear routing among sibling tools.

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