pcs_resource_enable

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the underlying CLI command but does not disclose side effects, whether the action is idempotent, whether it immediately starts the resource, or whether sudo/remote-host behavior changes the outcome.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. Every part earns its place: the action, the target, and the exact invocation syntax.

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 mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema. The description plus schema is enough to construct an invocation, but it leaves important context undefined: success/failure behavior, cluster impact, whether 'all' conflicts with 'resource', and whether sudo is needed. For a mutation tool, this is an incomplete agent-facing contract.

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. The description adds minor value by showing the mapping between 'resource' and '<id>' and 'all' and '--all', and implying either one is used, but it does not explain exclusivity or the SSH-related parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Enable'), a resource ('a resource or all resources'), and even the exact CLI invocation, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pcs_resource_disable and pcs_resource_restart without 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?

The intended use is implied: use this when you want to enable a resource or all resources. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, such as when to use pcs_resource_restart instead, nor does it state prerequisites or whether enabling is for previously disabled resources.

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