issue_supervisor_kubeconfig

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the kubeconfig embeds a Supervisor bearer token (JWT from /wcp/login), that the token acts as the configured vCenter account until expiry, and that the credential lifetime is not tied to the process. It also documents the two distinct return shapes, the file mode (0600), and the security-sensitive recommendation to always use output_path; nothing here contradicts readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true.

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-loads the operation type and purpose, then the gating rule, then return shapes, then the token-safety warning, then the sibling pointer. Dense but every clause carries actionable information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return contracts ({namespace, kubeconfig} vs {namespace, written_to}), a security constraint, and a sibling escape hatch. For a credential-issuing write tool this covers everything an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds real meaning by explaining why output_path should be supplied (keeping the token out of agent context) and what to report back (only the path). It does not further explain the 'target' or 'namespace' parameters, leaving them to the schema.

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?

Opens with a bracketed operation type ('[WRITE]'), a specific verb ('issue') and a specific resource ('kubeconfig for the Supervisor K8s API'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from issue_tkc_kubeconfig, so an agent can pick the right credential tool without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition — 'Call only when the user explicitly asks for this kubeconfig; never as a side step' — plus a routing rule to issue_tkc_kubeconfig for TKC workloads. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are stated.

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