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

Annotations declare write/non-idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: the publish-versus-draft bifurcation, that as_draft routes through human review and publication via publish_stack_profile_draft, and that changelog is ignored in draft mode. It does not address duplicate-name behavior for the published path or permission requirements, 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?

Front-loads the action and the two modes before the usage guidance. Uses parenthetical twin-command references that are dense but informative; slightly long, though every clause carries meaning.

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?

Covers both operating modes, the downstream review/publication path, and the sibling distinction, which is a lot for a 7-param mutation tool without an output schema. Gaps are minor: no statement on what happens when a published profile with the same name already exists, and no auth/permission notes.

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 7 parameters including as_draft's attach/next-version semantics and the 2 MiB limit. The description mostly re-frames these rather than adding new syntax or format detail, 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 (create/import) plus the resource (stack profile) and the source (a ClusterInfrastructureAsCode YAML document), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling create_stack_profile, which 'builds one from a running stack instead'. An agent can pick it apart from siblings 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 explicit when-to-use conditions: bringing a profile exported elsewhere into the organisation, or staging a file-authored candidate for review. It names the alternative (create_stack_profile) and the mode selector (as_draft) with its human-review consequence.

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