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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing non-obvious side effects ('Auto-creates the namespace manifest and wires dependency parents') and the secret-handling contract (never pass a real secret, use ANKRA_SECRET_PARAMETER, use ${variable_name} for customisable values). These are exactly the behaviors an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the non-deploy nature, side effects, and parameter conventions. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

For a non-idempotent mutation into a draft with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and the tricky value/secret semantics well. It stops short of describing what the call returns (e.g. an addon id for follow-up calls) or any auth/permission prerequisite, which would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds genuine meaning on top of it: it defines the secret-value convention for values_yaml and the ${variable_name} convention, and clarifies that 'parents' is a deploy-order wiring concept.

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?

States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a Helm chart addon to a stack profile builder draft'), which is enough to separate it from add_manifest_to_stack_profile_draft by resource type. It does not explicitly name a sibling or alternative, so it stops short of the 5 bar, but the scope is 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?

'This composes the reusable template - nothing deploys and no cluster is needed' gives clear context that this is a draft-authoring step rather than a deploy action. However, it never states when to prefer it over add_manifest_to_stack_profile_draft or update_addon_in_stack_profile_draft, so no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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