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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that the call provisions Postgres and Auth when absent and restarts a stopped backend. It does not cover partial-failure semantics (e.g., Postgres created but Auth failed) or permission/cost implications, which a provisioning operation would ideally state.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the side effects, then the return contract. No redundant restatement of the name or title and nothing that could be cut.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return explanation is not required, yet the description usefully anchors it to projects_cloud_get plus a "created" flag. What is missing is behavior around failure or repeated invocation on an already-running Cloud, which matters for a non-idempotent provisioning 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% and the single project_id parameter is described as the UUID of a project owned by the authenticated user, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter — no mention of project_id at all — making this the baseline 3 case where 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Turn on Bunstation Cloud for a project") and immediately clarifies the effect: provisioning Postgres and Auth or starting a stopped backend. That distinguishes it cleanly from projects_cloud_get (status read), projects_cloud_stop (inverse), and projects_create.

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?

The phrase "or starts a stopped Cloud backend" implicitly defines the trigger condition — Cloud is off or stopped — and the sibling set makes the alternative (projects_cloud_stop, projects_cloud_get) inferable. It stops short of an explicit "use this when… / do not use when…" statement, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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