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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), it discloses the non-obvious operational traits: roughly one minute of asynchronous provisioning that must be awaited via get_server, secrets being write-only, and the returned server id. No contradiction with the declared hints.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then workflow constraint, then parameter notes, then the provisioning delay — a sensible order. Slightly redundant with the schema on secrets and the browser kind, and the sentences are long, but no line is filler.

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, zero-required creation tool with an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing: prerequisite check, side effects, write-only values, latency, and the readiness gate are all covered. Return shape is delegated to the output schema, as appropriate.

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 kind, tier, region, project_sharing, and the secrets item shape are already fully documented. The description's mentions of `secrets` (server-wide, shared by every project, write-only) and `kind: "browser"` largely restate the schema in abbreviated form, adding only the sharing scope implied by 'server-wide'. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Provision a sized server box') and immediately situates it in the object model: servers hold projects, projects get URLs. It is clearly distinguishable from create_project, get_server, and list_servers named in the text.

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 explicit routing logic: check list_servers for a server with room before creating another, and poll get_server until provisioning reads ready before writing files. It also names the condition that selects the browser variant, so precedence between this tool and its siblings is fully determined.

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