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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=true, so the safety profile is already carried. The description adds real value beyond that: credentials required up front and the key behavioral fact that provisioning starts immediately after confirmation (a non-trivial side effect the agent should communicate). It does not explain why the operation is destructive or how to monitor provisioning.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then requirements, then the critical timing note. Dense but every sentence earns its place; the alternative routing instruction is placed logically before the side-effect warning.

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 22-parameter, 10-required provisioning tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, id resolution, and the immediate-provisioning side effect. Annotations cover safety. What is missing is guidance on optional constructs (node_groups vs worker_count) and post-creation tracking, though the schema details those fields.

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 every parameter is already documented with type and '(from list_morpheus_options)' hints. The description largely restates this by grouping the placement ids and plan ids, offering only mild conceptual organization rather than new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource pairing ('Create and provision a new Kubernetes cluster') with an explicit platform qualifier ('on HPE Morpheus') that cleanly separates it from the many sibling create_*_cluster tools (AWS, Hetzner, OVH, Proxmox, etc.). An agent can route to this tool 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?

States the prerequisites (HPE Morpheus credential, SSH key credential, numeric placement/plan ids) and explicitly routes the agent to list_morpheus_options to resolve every id. No explicit when-not conditions, but the platform qualifier and prerequisite list provide clear usage context.

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