vibeside_cluster_configure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only lists field names. It does not say whether configuration is persistent, applies immediately or on restart, affects already-running workers, or requires the cluster to be stopped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and zero filler. Nothing is wasted.

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 9-parameter, all-optional mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. The schema covers parameter detail well, but the absence of any statement about persistence, side effects, or effect on running workers leaves real gaps.

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 all 9 parameters with defaults and ranges. The description merely repeats six of those names (omitting basePort, taskTimeoutMs, spawnTimeoutMs), adding no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Configure) plus resource (worker pool limits) with an enumeration of the key tunables. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like cluster_scale or cluster_status by framing it as pool-limit configuration, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing against the sibling cluster tools (status, scale, dispatch, shutdown). The agent must infer the invocation context entirely.

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