Create HA group

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds 'HIGH RISK' and a request for user confirmation, which goes beyond the annotation and provides actionable behavioral guidance without contradiction.

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 sentences front-load the purpose and a critical warning. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description is adequate for a creation tool given the annotations, but it lacks details on return values, side effects beyond destruction, or explanation of the failover/restart policy flags, which would improve completeness.

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 50% (3 of 6 params have descriptions). The description mentions 'preferred nodes' and 'failover/restart policy' but does not fully document all parameters, leaving comment, nofailback, and restricted undefined.

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 creates an HA group with preferred nodes and a failover/restart policy. The verb 'Create' and resource 'HA group' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like update_ha_group and delete_ha_group.

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?

It explicitly warns 'HIGH RISK — ask the user to confirm before invoking,' providing a clear usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like update_ha_group or list_ha_groups.

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