pve_ceph_osd_in

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses the mutation type, risk level, synchronicity, dry-run vs. confirm behavior, response format, pre-check of CRUSH tree, and absence of rollback. This is exceptionally thorough.

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 densely informative but well-structured with distinct thematic sections (mutation, risk, behavior, execution). It is slightly verbose in technical details (e.g., endpoint path) but remains efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, risk, pre-check, dry-run mechanism, synchronous execution, and the revert option. It does not include prerequisites but otherwise is highly 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's role (dry-run vs. execute) but does not elaborate on node, osdid, or proximo_target beyond the schema's own descriptions. Thus, it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 verb ('mark a Ceph OSD in') and the resource ('Ceph OSD'), along with its effect ('rejoins the CRUSH acting set; data rebalances BACK onto it'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other pve_ceph_osd_* tools beyond mentioning the revert sibling, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 contextual guidance by mentioning risk level, lack of upstream safety check, and the revert counterpart (pve_ceph_osd_out). It implies when to use (to bring an OSD back in), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives beyond the revert.

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