Редактирование Kubernetes-кластера

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a non-destructive write. The description adds that only name, description, or OIDC provider are edited, and that version/nodes are excluded, but it does not disclose details like whether the OIDC provider is replaced wholesale or if permissions are required. With annotations present, the description adds adequate but not extensive context.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes an important exclusion. No redundant or extraneous 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?

This is a straightforward update tool with good annotations and complete schema. The description effectively clarifies scope and separation from other tools, but does not mention behavior when optional fields are omitted (e.g., are they left unchanged) or require cluster existence. Given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description merely lists which fields are editable (name, description, oidc_provider) without adding semantics beyond the schema. This is the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 edits the cluster's name, description, or OIDC provider, and explicitly distinguishes from other tools by noting that version and nodes are changed separately. This makes the purpose specific and well-differentiated from sibling tools like update_k8s_cluster_version and node group 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 explicit when-not-to-use guidance by stating that other parameters (version, nodes) are modified by separate tools. This helps an agent decide when to select this tool versus alternatives, though it does not name exact sibling tool names.

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