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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description goes far beyond: draft-not-deployed default, encrypted values stripped with warnings, name conflicts auto-resolved with suffixes, config-only vs data semantics, and explicit refusal conditions. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure the annotations can't carry.

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?

The purpose and default (draft) are front-loaded, then permissions, then data handling, then the follow-up apply step. Dense but warranted for a 10-parameter mutation; a few clauses could be tightened but nothing is wasted.

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 complex cross-cluster mutation with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers permissions, side effects, data modes, refusal conditions, and the required post-step ('review and apply the draft'). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 all 10 parameters thoroughly; the description largely restates that content (include_data, deploy_after_clone, data_clone_mode). It adds integration context but little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource+scope: 'Clone a stack from the current cluster to another cluster in the organisation as a stack DRAFT.' This distinguishes it from siblings like create_stack, redeploy_stack and rename_stack without opening any schema.

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?

Gives rich contextual conditions: clone yields a draft unless deploy_after_clone is set, include_data requires backups.operate and is refused on name conflict, and the user must hold ai.execute and stacks.write on the target. It doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the when-to-use and when-refused conditions are clear.

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