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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses atomicity ('every new one, or none'), the exact non-destructive semantics ('leaves the services it has as they are and never deletes, so calling it again is safe'), secret generation behavior, and what gets returned including the `<briq>:URL` outputs and TLS endpoints under expose. The idempotency claim is backed by mechanism rather than merely restating idempotentHint.

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-loaded with the core action and the file argument, then layers the creation rules, secret policy, return values, and a pointer to briq_docs. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause carries operational weight for a multi-service provisioning tool; only the recipe-field enumeration feels slightly over-packed.

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 five-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: atomic creation, non-destructive re-runs, secret sourcing policy, the shape of returned outputs, and the expose trade-off. Nothing essential is missing before a correct call.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `file` must be the file as read from the repo, `expose` is scoped to outside-briq clients with a TLS endpoint per database, and `secrets` is keyed by the { secret: NAME } references plus a never-invent instruction. `wait` and `stack` are not addressed in the description, keeping it from a 5.

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 and resource: bring up the stack a repo declares in briq.yaml, creating whatever services don't exist yet. It explicitly positions itself against briq_run ('as briq_run makes it and under the same checks') and points to briq_docs for the file format, so an agent can place it among siblings 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 clear conditions: use it when a repo ships a stack file, pass the file content as read, and only set `expose: true` when the person needs access from outside briq. It also states the handling rule for secrets — ask the person for a value briq cannot generate, never invent one. It stops short of an explicit 'to create a single service, use briq_run instead' exclusion, leaving that to inference from the briq_run references.

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