Argocd Run Resource Action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description reinforces 'destructive' but adds no further behavioral context such as whether the action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but additional context would be valuable.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose and examples. Every word earns its place.

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 action tool with 10 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the essence but omits important context such as authorization requirements (project scoping), the need to discover actions first, and error conditions. An agent would need to infer these from the schema and annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'action' and target resource but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no clarification on the parameters object or group/version). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action: running a custom resource action, with concrete examples (restart a Deployment, pause a Rollout). It distinguishes from read-only siblings like list_resource_actions. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling list_resource_actions as a prerequisite, leaving some ambiguity about how to discover available actions.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that one should first call list_resource_actions to discover valid action names, nor does it describe prerequisites or typical use cases beyond the example.

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