Add HA resource

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true. The description adds context that the service will be restarted on failure, which explains the destructive nature. No contradiction. It provides useful behavioral insight beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: first defines purpose, second adds risk and action requirement. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

Covers purpose, risk, and confirmation requirement. However, with 7 parameters and no output schema, it lacks information about return values or asynchronous behavior. Adequate but leaves 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 high (71-86%), so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds value by linking the confirm parameter to the usage guideline ('Ask the user to confirm'), but doesn't add significant meaning to other params.

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 makes a VM or container HA-managed, matching the name 'add_ha_resource'. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_ha_resources or migrate_ha_resource, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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 explicitly advises high risk and requiring user confirmation before invocation, which is a strong usage guideline. It doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, but the confirmation condition is a clear directive.

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