uncordon-node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool marks a node as schedulable, which implies a mutation (changing node state) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information concisely.

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 is a mutation (implied by 'mark') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., permissions, effects), usage guidelines, and what to expect upon execution. For a tool that modifies cluster state, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate safely and effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'node' documented as 'The name of the node to uncordon'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not elaborate on parameter syntax, format, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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 'Mark a node as schedulable' clearly states the action (mark) and resource (node) with a specific purpose (making it schedulable). It distinguishes from sibling 'cordon-node' by implying an opposite operation, though not explicitly named. It avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name 'uncordon-node'.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when a node needs to be made schedulable, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., node must be cordoned first), exclusions, or direct alternatives like 'cordon-node' for the opposite action. This leaves the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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