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

Annotations already declare write/openWorld/non-idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: public-Internet exposure ('as for rig.run.create'), quota impact ('each interaction it accepts counts one rig.interaction'), and lifecycle ('lives until the run ends'). No auth/permission detail, but this is substantive added value.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the verb and resource scope come first, with secondary facts (internet effect, interaction counting, lifetime) trailing. Only one awkward run-on sentence and a fragment; no filler, though a bulleted type list would scan faster.

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 7-parameter, nested-object, mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations-level detail beyond hints, the description covers purpose, dynamic-vs-declared scope, side effects and lifetime. It leaves return-value expectations and permission requirements unstated, which is a modest gap given there is no output schema to compensate.

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 71%, so most parameters carry their own descriptions. The description still adds value by translating enum values into intuitive terms (inbox=email, callback URL=callback, mock with rules=mock_http, route label=connector_route) and by calling out the optional callback forwarding to a connector route, which helps an agent choose the right type and shape the request.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Allocate one more resource on an active run') with a concrete enumeration of what can be allocated (inbox, callback URL, mock with rules, route label) that maps onto the type enum. The 'beyond what the suite declared' clause sharpens the scope so an agent can distinguish this from suite-level declaration tools like rig.suite.upsert.

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?

Clear context for use: on an *active* run, for resources not already declared in the suite, with the connector-route variant called out. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it (e.g., why not declare it in the suite instead), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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