force_ako_sync

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the dry-run default, the exact blast_radius contents, the requirement for explicit user confirmation, and specific refusal conditions (terminating pod, unreadable pod/Ingress list).

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?

Front-loaded with [WRITE] and the core action, then layered with preview semantics, refusals, and workflow ordering. Dense and mostly purposeful, though the confirmation-guardrail point is stated at length and could be tightened.

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, open-world mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what to expect (blast_radius), what gets changed, refusal cases, and traffic-disruption risk. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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% (baseline 3), and the description adds policy meaning beyond the schema: the preview-vs-apply semantics of confirm and an explicit instruction not to pre-set it without user review. It does not add syntax detail for context or the deprecated confirmed alias, which remain schema-only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Force AKO to resync all K8s resources with the AVI Controller,' and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming diff_ako_sync and get_ako_sync_status as complementary steps. The [WRITE] marker further clarifies the operation class.

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?

Explicit: 'Use when drift is detected,' directed to run diff_ako_sync first and get_ako_sync_status after, plus an explicit when-not ('Do not set confirm=True on your own because the user asked earlier'). Alternatives and preconditions are all named.

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