pcs_node_standby

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core behavioral outcome: resources no longer run on the node. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as reversibility, impact on resource movement, permissions, or error behavior.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and effect, then gives the command syntax efficiently.

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?

The operation is simple and all six parameters are described in the schema, so the agent can invoke it correctly. However, the absence of annotations, output schema, and any mention of revert behavior or side effects leaves some contextual gaps for a mutating cluster command.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the description adds little beyond the command placeholder '[<node>]'. The node parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema; the description does not materially augment them.

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 ('Put a node in standby') and the affected resource (node), and the parenthetical '(no resources run there)' clarifies the operational effect. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling pcs_node_unstandby, but the command syntax makes the action unambiguous.

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 includes the command form 'pcs node standby [<node>]', but gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcs_node_unstandby or resource-level controls. It does not mention prerequisites, expected conditions, or exclusions.

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