The correct answer is Taints and tolerations do not instruct a pod to go to a specific host and they only indicate whether a node will accept pods that tolerate its taints.

This is correct because taints are a node sided mechanism that repel pods that do not have matching tolerations. A toleration on a pod simply allows the scheduler to consider that pod for a tainted node. It does not act as an instruction to place the pod on that node and the scheduler still evaluates other constraints such as resource availability, selectors, and affinity rules.

Taints and tolerations are only enforced after pods have already been scheduled is wrong because taints and tolerations are evaluated during scheduling to prevent or allow placement on nodes and they can also cause eviction when a taint with the appropriate effect is added to a node.

You needed to place the taint on the pod and the toleration on the node is wrong because the model is the opposite. Taints are applied to nodes and tolerations are specified on pods so that the pod can tolerate a node's taint.

Use node affinity or a nodeSelector to target a pod to a particular node is not the right answer to why the toleration did not force placement. While node affinity or a nodeSelector are the correct tools to direct a pod to a particular node, the question asked why the taint and toleration did not by themselves cause the pod to land on the tainted node.

Full AWS Practitioner Certification Question