upgrade_tkc_cluster

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds [WRITE] but does not elaborate on behavioral details like whether the cluster remains available during upgrade, rollback options, or permission requirements. It provides minimal additional transparency beyond annotations.

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 concise (23 words plus a three-line args list) and front-loaded with the primary action. The [WRITE] tag and Args layout are efficient. Every sentence contributes meaning, 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?

Given the tool's straightforward upgrade purpose and the presence of annotations, the description sufficiently covers the main action and provides a key hint for the version parameter. It does not mention prerequisites or post-conditions, but for a simple mutation tool, the information is adequate for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It lists three required parameters (name, namespace, k8s_version) but only provides actionable guidance for k8s_version ('use get_tkc_available_versions to list'). The optional 'target' parameter is omitted entirely, and name/namespace are left unexplained beyond their names.

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 explicitly states action ('Upgrade'), resource ('TKC cluster'), and target ('new K8s version'). The [WRITE] tag clearly marks it as a mutation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tkc_cluster, delete_tkc_cluster, or scale_tkc_cluster.

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 advises using get_tkc_available_versions to list available K8s versions, providing concrete context for the k8s_version parameter. It does not specify when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., recreating the cluster), but the upgrade scenario is self-evident and the hint is useful.

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