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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior not in the annotations: secret values are automatically redacted into parameters, and the snapshot is versioned at creation. It does not discuss permissions, cluster-side side effects, or failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

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, all earning their place: purpose first, behavior/redaction second, disambiguation third. Front-loaded and waste-free, with no restatement of schema fields.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it produces, how secrets are handled, and how it differs from the versioning sibling. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though it does not say what the tool returns (profile id) or whether the source stack must be in a healthy/deployed state.

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 all 8 parameters including name uniqueness, cluster_id discovery, and include_addon_configurations are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the conceptual point that secrets become parameters, not per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the load.

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+output ('Save a deployed stack ... as a NEW reusable stack profile (versioned template)'), and explicitly names the sibling it is not: save_stack_profile_version. An agent can distinguish it from clone_stack, create_stack_profile_draft, and save_stack_profile_version without opening a 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 a concrete when-to-use trigger ('Use when the user wants to reuse a stack elsewhere or turn it into a template') and an explicit exclusion routing to the alternative tool for adding versions to an EXISTING profile. Nothing is left to inference.

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