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

Annotations declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: provisioning starts immediately after creation, and the required credential types. It omits cost implications and failure/rollback behavior, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is solid additional value.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, each earning its place: the action, the prerequisites, the immediate-provisioning warning, and the credential/size lookup guidance. No filler.

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 12-parameter destructive creation tool with no output schema, it covers prerequisites, timing, credential discovery, and sizing conventions well. It does not describe what the tool returns on success (no output schema exists), leaving a minor gap for a create operation whose result the agent may need to act on.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: worker/bastion/control-plane sizes are DigitalOcean droplet slugs like 's-2vcpu-4gb', and it warns that list_instance_types does not cover DigitalOcean, steering the agent away from a plausible wrong lookup.

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 and resource ('Create and provision a new Kubernetes cluster') scoped to DigitalOcean, which cleanly distinguishes it from the many sibling create_*_cluster tools (aws, hetzner, ovh, scaleway, upcloud). An agent can identify the provider and operation without opening the 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 concrete prerequisites (DO API credential, SSH key credential, region) and routes the agent to list_provider_credentials for credential IDs, plus an explicit exclusion ('list_instance_types does not cover DigitalOcean'). It stops short of contrasting with sibling cluster-creation tools or stating when not to use it, but the provider scoping makes the context clear.

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