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

Annotations only say destructive=true and idempotent=false; the description goes well beyond them by enumerating the side effects on confirm (resource-graph write, best-effort webhook provisioning, initial commit of cluster state, sync nudge) and the refusal/prune behavior on repointing. It even clarifies the safe re-connect case, which is exactly the nuance an agent needs given the destructive hint.

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?

Long but dense: purpose, input sourcing, side effects, and refusal behavior are front-loaded and each sentence adds distinct operational information. Slightly heavier than necessary, but nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return/effect burden and does so: it describes what is written, what is provisioned, what is pushed, and when the call is refused. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and predict the outcome.

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, but the description adds real semantics: credential_id is preferred over credential_name, credential_name is refused when ambiguous, and repository must appear in the credential's synced repository list. This is meaningfully more than the schema fields carry.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Connect a GitOps repository to a cluster that has none', and pins the scope further with 'bind an existing GitHub credential plus a repository and branch'. It also names the related lookup siblings (list_gitops_credentials, list_gitops_repositories), so an agent can place it precisely in the GitOps flow.

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?

Explicitly states where inputs come from ('Pick the credential from list_gitops_credentials ... and the repository from list_gitops_repositories'), the precondition that the repo must be in the credential's synced list, and a clear when-not: refused when the cluster is already connected to a different GitOps source, which must go through the cluster settings flow instead.

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