pcs_node_unstandby

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

No annotations exist, so the description alone must disclose side effects, but it only restates the command 'pcs node unstandby [<node>]'. It does not state whether this triggers cluster reconfiguration, requires privileges, or what failure modes occur.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler; the action and command are immediately visible.

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 tool is a simple state-changing command with no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not cover when to use it or the effects of the operation on the cluster. The missing context beyond the schema makes it only minimally complete.

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 schema already documents node, sudo, cluster, timeoutMs, sshConfigHost, and sshConfigPath. The description adds only the [<node>] syntax, matching the node field, with no extra meaning.

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 names the specific operation 'Bring a node out of standby' and gives the exact command form, so an agent knows the tool reverses standby. This distinguishes it from the sibling pcs_node_standby without needing to open schemas.

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 indicates when to choose this over pcs_node_standby or status tools; the usage is only implied by the verb. An agent must infer the precondition that the node is in standby and that other status/management tools serve different purposes.

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