sylve_replication

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

Annotations already declare this tool as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and destructive, so the critical safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond the vague 'Manage' framing and does not explain failover risks, data-loss confirmation, wait behavior, or policy/event handling.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, for a 12-parameter multi-action tool, the structure is too terse to be genuinely appropriate, even if it avoids verbosity.

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, destructive annotation, and lack of an output schema, the single-sentence description leaves major gaps. It does not explain the five action types, failover implications, safety-related parameters, or operational prerequisites.

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 only 25% across 12 parameters, and the description does not compensate. It vaguely maps to the action groups 'policies', 'events', and 'failovers' but never clarifies action values, mode, wait, limit, target_node, confirm_data_loss, move_pinned_source, or the other parameters.

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 the resource domain precisely: HA replication policies, events, and failovers. It clearly distinguishes this tool from VM, jail, and storage siblings, though the generic verb 'Manage' and lack of action-level distinctions keep it from being fully 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when to choose each action, or when not to use it. The sentence only broadly implies that it is for replication management, without operational context.

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