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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) by disclosing the GitOps commit behavior, full-replacement vs merge semantics, the placeholder-rejection failure mode, the secret-handling constraint, and the recovery path via rollback_addon. This is rich operational context the agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by imperative constraints in decreasing order of edit-time urgency. No redundant restatement of the schema; every sentence adds an actionable rule or failure mode.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation safety detail, the description covers the full picture: prerequisite read, replacement semantics, validation failures, security constraints, and reversibility. Nothing material is missing.

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 schema already documents all three params, but the description adds real meaning: values must be the COMPLETE document, must not carry [REDACTED:...] placeholders, and must not contain plaintext secrets. This is more than the base64/YAML encoding note in the schema.

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: 'Replace an installed addon's helm values with a full YAML document and commit the change to the cluster's GitOps repository.' This distinguishes it from close siblings like update_addon_settings, update_addon_in_stack_profile_draft, and sync_addon.

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?

Explicit workflow and prerequisites: fetch the current document first with get_addon_configuration, understand this is a full replacement not a merge, handle placeholders, avoid plaintext secrets, and revert with rollback_addon. Names the alternative tools and the exact conditions that select them.

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