pcs_cluster_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that the cluster stack is started and does not mention that this mutates cluster state, may require elevated privileges, or affects services on the node.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The phrase 'via pcs cluster start' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the overall length is appropriate.

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?

This is a thin command wrapper with self-describing optional parameters, so the description is enough to identify intent. However, it lacks behavioral context such as state change, permissions, and effects on the node, which would matter given no annotations or output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the 5 parameters is already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline applies because the schema adequately covers semantics.

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 ('Start'), the target resource ('cluster stack'), and scope ('on the node'), which differentiates it from the stop/status sibling tools. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the verb and resource are specific enough to avoid ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus pcs_cluster_stop or the status commands. It also omits prerequisites such as cluster membership, node requirements, or permission considerations. Usage is only implied by the word 'Start'.

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