import_spoke_cluster

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose side effects. It explicitly states that it creates ManagedCluster and KlusterletAddonConfig resources, fetches a Secret, applies manifests to the spoke, and polls until Joined/Available. This gives the agent a concrete behavioral model of what the tool does beyond the name.

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 a single dense sentence that packs the full workflow into a compact, scannable format. No filler words; every clause serves a purpose. The colon and comma-separated steps make it easy to parse.

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 steps are described, but the tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should also explain return behavior or completion signals beyond 'poll until Joined/Available'. It also omits failure modes, prerequisites like kubeconfig validity, and the meaning of timeout_seconds. Given the multi-step side-effecting nature, more context is needed for fully confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the entire burden for parameter meaning. It does not explain hub_kubeconfig, spoke_kubeconfig, cluster_name, or timeout_seconds individually. While the narrative implies hub vs. spoke kubeconfigs and the cluster name, timeout_seconds is completely absent, and no parameter-specific guidance is provided.

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 names a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('spoke into an ACM hub'), and enumerates the concrete steps involved. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools such as get_cluster_info, reserve_cluster, and get_managed_cluster_status, all of which cover different lifecycle operations.

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 clear context: it is the tool to call when you need to onboard a spoke cluster into an ACM hub. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the step-by-step procedure makes the intended use unambiguous 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.