manage_node

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description thoroughly discloses the behavioral impact: cordon prevents new pod scheduling, drain evicts all non-DaemonSet pods, and the options (force, delete_empty_dir_data, timeout) specify edge cases. This is rich, actionable behavioral detail that annotations alone would not provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and then systematically lists actions and drain options. No redundant wording; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 3 actions), the description fully explains the tool's behavior, parameter semantics, and safety implications. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to invoke it correctly. Annotations complement the description rather than leaving 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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds significant meaning by explaining what each action does and how the drain options modify behavior (e.g., 'drain cordons the node and evicts all non-DaemonSet pods'). This goes well beyond the schema's terse property descriptions and helps the agent select correct parameter values.

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 'Perform operations on a Kubernetes node' and enumerates the supported actions (cordon, uncordon, drain) with specific effects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_workload or patch_resource, which target different resources or generic patching.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to cordon, uncordon, or drain a node) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. The uniqueness of the actions makes usage clear, but it stops short of saying 'use this instead of X', so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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