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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the description focuses on what annotations cannot express: the cap-based failure mode, secrets being write-only, template-default override precedence, and the critical operational fact that a project only serves while a process listens on `listen_port`. It does not discuss deletion/teardown reversibility beyond pointing at cleanup_project, which is a minor gap.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and URL semantics before lifecycle/template/secrets details. Nearly every sentence carries distinct operational information, though the block is long enough that a reader must scan rather than parse quickly; splitting the `listen_port` note into its own line would help.

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 10-parameter nested-object creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the decisions the schema cannot: seeding strategy, lifecycle/cleanup pairing, template override precedence, cap failure, and the binding requirement for `listen_port`. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a step up by adding rules not in the schema: name is derived from the repo/archive when omitted, explicit fields override template defaults, and secrets are write-only env vars bound at creation. The access vs visibility interplay is left to the schema, which is reasonable.

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 project on a server") and immediately scopes what a project is: a home for one web page/site/app/API/bot with its own URL. It distinguishes itself from create_server and from list_templates by naming the prerequisite relationships explicitly.

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 concrete when-to-use routing: lifecycle="ephemeral" for one-shot work plus "call cleanup_project after", persistent as the default for monitors/dashboards; `template` when a starter exists vs `source` for your own code. It also names the failure condition (tier project cap), so the agent knows when this call will not succeed.

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