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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses persistence, the exact failure conditions, that retrying is futile, and that abusive workloads (mining, DoS, scanning) cause suspension. The main omission is what the call returns — no output schema exists, and a creation tool's identifier is what every sibling (run_command, install_package, expose_port) needs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and persistence guarantee, then failure handling, then the acceptable-use constraint. Every sentence changes agent behavior — no filler or restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter provisioning tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, failure modes, retry policy, and usage restrictions. The remaining gap is the return value / resulting machine identity, which an agent would need before chaining into run_command or expose_port.

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?

Only one parameter ('name') and schema description coverage is 100%, including an example, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no naming conventions, length limits, or uniqueness constraints beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when structured data fully covers the parameters.

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 ('Set up a new persistent computer — a fresh Linux machine') and immediately clarifies persistence ('keep whatever you install on it'), which is exactly what separates it from ephemeral siblings like create_checkpoint or sleep_environment. An agent can tell what it produces without opening the 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 context for use (provisioning a durable dev machine) and unusually actionable failure guidance: it names the two failure causes (no active subscription, at paid-machine limit) and tells the agent not to retry and to route the owner to the dashboard. It does not, however, mention alternatives such as get_active_environment/list_environments for checking whether a machine already exists.

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