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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description reinforces these with 'reuses an already-published one' (idempotency), 'anyone with the URL can send requests' (open-world exposure) and a security warning. It does not explain what the destructiveHint actually destroys (existing route removal on unpublish, or exposure risk), which is the one meaningful gap left.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then prerequisites, then behavior, then return shape. Slightly long, and the trailing sentence enumerating the response fields ('Returns name, provider, route id, ...') duplicates an existing output schema, so it does not fully earn its place.

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 an output schema, the description covers the prerequisites, the idempotent reuse behavior, the public-exposure security implication, and what the URL/status mean. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the result.

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 both parameters, including that 'name' accepts an id or display name and that 'port' selects the route. The description adds no format, range, or selection semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline 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+mechanism: 'Expose an HTTP application on a running Celesto Cloud computer through a public URL.' It is clearly distinguishable from siblings cloud_computer_port_list and cloud_computer_port_unpublish, which operate on the same route concept but do not create one.

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 prerequisites explicitly (computer must be running, guest image must support public ports, application must listen on the guest port) and gives a usage constraint ('Only publish endpoints intended for public traffic'). It never names port_unpublish as the inverse action, so the routing between the two 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.