Plan node evacuation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but 'Executes nothing' independently confirms the returned command sequence is advisory and will not be applied, which is the single most important fact for an agent about to act on the output. The enumeration of hazards it detects and the mention of Ceph 'noout' and HA maintenance mode add genuine behavioral context; it does not, however, say how it reports infeasible evacuations or whether the plan is safe to run verbatim.

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 purpose and the safety-critical 'Executes nothing' both land early, and the middle sentence carries the detection/assignment detail in one dense clause rather than prose. No filler sentences; every line contributes routing or behavioral 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?

For a three-parameter planning tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema (so return shape needn't be described), the description covers detection, assignment, and non-execution. The remaining gap is edge behavior — what the plan looks like when no valid target exists — which is non-trivial for a tool whose whole job is feasibility planning.

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 description coverage is 100%, so node, memory_limit, and exclude_targets are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description lends implicit meaning — 'overloading others' gestures at the memory_limit threshold — but adds no syntax, units, or interaction detail (e.g., how exclude_targets interacts with HA failover targets) 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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Plan how to empty a node for maintenance,' with the two failure modes it guards against (breaking HA, overloading others). It then enumerates exactly what the tool inspects (passthrough devices, bind mounts, local disks, locks, HA guests) and what it emits (target + migration mode + exact command sequence), which clearly separates it from siblings like recommend_placement or node_maintenance_status.

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 maintenance-drain context makes the intended moment of use unambiguous, and 'without breaking HA or overloading others' states the constraint the caller can tune. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions — e.g., when to prefer recommend_placement for pure placement questions or node_maintenance_status for reading current state — so the agent must infer routing.

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