apply_cluster_action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the human-minted token requirement and the constraint that the action must have been previously proposed, providing context beyond the annotation flags. It does not contradict the 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?

One concise summary sentence followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place – no filler, clear front-loading, and easy to scan.

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?

With only 2 params and an output schema present, the description covers the essential workflow, parameter provenance, and human approval requirement. However, it does not state whether applying is synchronous or idempotent, which would be useful for a destructive action.

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%, but the description fully explains both parameters: proposal_id is 'id returned by propose_cluster_action' and approval_token is 'token the operator produced with ocm-mcp approve <id>'. This adds meaningful operational meaning beyond the bare schema types and titles.

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 opens with 'Apply a previously proposed cluster lifecycle action' – a specific verb ('apply'), specific resource ('cluster lifecycle action'), and scope ('previously proposed'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling propose_cluster_action by indicating this tool executes an already-proposed action.

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 states prerequisites explicitly: requires a human-minted token, proposal_id from propose_cluster_action, and approval_token from 'ocm-mcp approve <id>'. This gives clear context that the tool is used after proposal creation, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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