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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the "[scope: write]" tag merely restates that. The one genuinely additive fact is "Creates no server," which scopes the side effect to metadata registration only, but there's no mention of uniqueness constraints on name, permissions, or whether the repo is validated at creation time.

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 front-loaded fragments, with the most important constraint (no server created) placed before any filler. The trailing "[scope: write]" tag is redundant with annotations and could be dropped, but nothing else is wasted.

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 six-parameter, open-world creation tool with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description omits parameter meanings, what gets returned (project identifier for later deploy calls), and uniqueness/validation behavior. Adequate for identifying the tool, inadequate for calling it confidently.

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 only 17%, with just repo_url documented, so the description needed to compensate. It only gestures at "repo + server size" (repo_url, server_type) and leaves name, branch, location, and custom_domain — including the meaning of the fsn1/cpx11 defaults — without any guidance.

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?

"Register a project (repo + server size)" gives a specific verb and resource, and "Creates no server" pre-empts confusion with the deploy/destroy siblings. It's clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling it hands off to for actually provisioning.

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?

"Creates no server" implies a register-then-deploy workflow and signals this is a prerequisite step, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (cloudhosting_deploy_project) is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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