devtools_deploy_openstack_operator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly warns that the operation 'Modifies the cluster' and that confirm must be true, which are meaningful behavioral disclosures for a deploying/mutating tool. It doesn't discuss permissions, reversibility, or precise cluster resources affected, but it is not silent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core usecase and side-effect before the structured fields. There is some redundancy among TOOL_NAME, DISPLAY_NAME, and the opening sentence, but each field earns its place overall.

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 single-parameter deployment tool, the definition covers the usecase, prerequisite, required confirmation value, example invocation, output fields, and related tool. It doesn't elaborate on output semantics or failure modes, but the provided OUTPUT_DESCRIPTION and example are sufficient for basic correct use.

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?

The input schema only defines confirm as a boolean with default false; the description compensates by stating 'confirm (bool) — must be true' and providing a concrete example with confirm=True. This resolves the default-value ambiguity and is essential for correct invocation.

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 USECASE line clearly states 'Install the RHOSO OpenStack operator' and notes it 'Modifies the cluster,' giving a specific verb, resource, and side-effect. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the related devtools_deploy_openstack_operator_cr tool, so it misses the strongest sibling differentiation.

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 gives a clear context for use: the USECASE says when to install the OpenStack operator, and PREREQUISITES says 'OpenStack dependencies deployed' must already be true. It doesn't state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond RELATED_TOOLS, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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