Update node disks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it explicitly flags 'Destructive,' names the specific failure mode ('Disabling scheduling or shrinking storageReserved on a disk can strand replicas'), and imposes an authorization gate. This goes well beyond a generic destructive hint by telling the agent why and when harm occurs.

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 compact (~65 words) and front-loaded: core action first, then parameter semantics, then risk, then the authorization constraint, with a docs link last. Every sentence earns its place, and the safety warnings are positioned prominently without padding.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical context: what it does, parameter shape, the inspect-first workflow, the concrete risk, and the authorization requirement. Minor gaps remain: the name parameter is undescribed and return/response behavior is not addressed, which the absence of an output schema makes slightly more relevant.

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 0%, and the description compensates substantially for the complex disks parameter by defining it as 'the raw array of Longhorn Disk objects' and listing key fields (path, allowScheduling, storageReserved, tags, diskType). It also instructs inspecting node_get output for the exact shape. The required name parameter, however, is left entirely implicit with no explanation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update the disk configuration for a node.' This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling node_update, which targets general node settings, by scoping to disk configuration. The title and description align with no ambiguity about what resource is affected.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: inspect the node via node_get first to see the current disk shape, and a hard when-not-to-call constraint ('never proactively, speculatively, or as a side effect of another task'). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for non-disk node updates or state exclusions versus node_update, so the 'when-not' guidance is behavioral rather than tool-routing.

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