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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the operation 'May incur usage charges' and requires explicit BEON PASS user approval. Those are consequential side effects and an auth gate not derivable from annotations. It stops short of saying what happens on repeat calls (non-idempotent) or what is returned.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the cost warning, then the approval gate. No filler and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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 purpose, cost, and the approval requirement, which is good for a mutation tool whose annotations already carry the safety hints and which has no output schema to explain. However, for a 10-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage it leaves the approval_id and beon_* parameters entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently construct a valid 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 description coverage is 0% and the description documents no parameters beyond loosely implying a workspace and a name. Eight of ten parameters — approval_id, beon_app_id, beon_context, beon_resume_id, beon_release_id, beon_environment, beon_connection_id, description — are undocumented in both schema and description. With this coverage gap the description should compensate but does not, so it scores below the baseline.

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 ('Create a private Railway project') plus the scoping requirement ('in a selected workspace'). An agent can distinguish it from read/delete siblings like railway_get_project or railway_delete_project. It does not explicitly differentiate from the analogous supabase_create_project / vercel_create_project tools, but the name prefix carries that.

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 one real precondition — 'Requires exact user approval in BEON PASS' — which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It offers no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites like needing a valid workspaceId from railway_list_workspaces.

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