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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the agent-side install/start/verify sequence and the run_id return path. But annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description never says the bring-up mutates server state or that re-invoking restarts rather than resumes cleanly — the 'start or resume' phrasing arguably softens the non-idempotent trait without explaining it.

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 purpose, then routing, then the polling pointer — minimal waste. The middle sentence packs several claims but each earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists and the description still points to get_run for polling, so return handling is covered. The main gap is that the destructive/non-idempotent profile from annotations is not elaborated, which matters for a tool that installs packages and starts processes on a server.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description restates proceed ('continue past still-missing optional secrets') with only the added nuance that the secrets are optional, and adds nothing for project_id beyond the schema's pointer to create_project/list_projects.

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 ('Start or resume bring-up for a project') and enumerates what the operation actually does: installs dependencies, starts the app, confirms it responds. It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by name ('Not for a project whose files you wrote yourself: start that one with start_app').

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 an explicit when-to-use ('seeded from a git/archive source'), an explicit when-not-to-use with the alternative tool named ('start_app'), and a follow-up action ('poll with get_run'). The proceed flag condition is also stated.

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