e2e_node_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that several actions are destructive or irreversible (power_off, reinstall, save_images), whether permissions are required, or what state changes each action causes. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and stays appropriately short. The action enumeration is somewhat redundant with the schema enum, but overall it is tight and well-structured.

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 a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose destructive/irreversible behavior, permission needs, and the full action set. It omits two enum values and all behavioral context, leaving an agent under-informed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's action list partially duplicates the enum but is incomplete (8 of 10 values) and adds no detail on the non-enum parameters (node_id, name, location, project_id) or the conditional requirement for name.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Execute a lifecycle action on a compute node') and enumerates the actions, which helps an agent understand what the tool does and separates it from create/delete/get siblings. However, the enumeration is incomplete relative to the schema's enum (it omits enable_recovery_mode and disable_recovery_mode), and there is no explicit contrast with siblings.

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 states only what the tool does, with no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., which actions require the node to be in a given state), and no mention of alternatives such as e2e_create_node or e2e_delete_node. An agent gets no routing help.

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