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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description adds a non-obvious behavioral constraint: real Secret values are rejected and every data/stringData value must be ANKRA_SECRET_PARAMETER. That's exactly the kind of context annotations can't convey. It stops short of describing the return or whether this mutates the draft in place.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the Secret constraint that would otherwise cause a failed call is stated immediately after.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the key failure mode (Secret rejection). Missing only draft lifecycle context (does this persist, can it be removed via remove_manifest_from_stack_profile_draft).

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces manifest content expectations but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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?

Specific verb (Add) + resource (raw Kubernetes manifest) + target (stack profile builder draft), with concrete examples (Namespace, ConfigMap, Secret scaffold). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like apply_manifest, validate_cluster_manifest, and add_addon_to_stack_profile_draft.

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 Secret-handling rule implies when this tool is appropriate, but it never states when to use this versus alternatives such as apply_manifest or validate_cluster_manifest, nor any prerequisites like draft existence.

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