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

Goes well beyond the annotations (openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint): it discloses the consent gate ('without confirm:true it returns a plan and changes nothing'), that upgrade needs root/sudo, that upgrade defaults to plan-only, that secrets are never read or transmitted, and that help:true avoids contacting the target. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs for a destructive provisioning call.

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 the provisioning action and its sub-steps, then the consent/dry-run behavior, then the sibling exclusion. Every sentence carries weight, though the middle section is densely packed and could be split for readability.

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 complex, destructive, multi-step, SSH-capable tool with 11 params, nested target object, and an output schema, the description covers scope, consent, privilege requirements, secret handling, and alternative tools. Nothing material an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the semantics of help:true (full docs, no target access), confirm:true (consent gate), and upgrade:true (root/sudo, plan-only default) in terms of behavior rather than just naming the flags.

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 ('Provision a bare Linux target end-to-end in one call') and enumerates the concrete steps performed (scan, dry-run plan, install OpenCode, apply VDD profile, verify parity). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the granular siblings, so an agent can select it without opening any 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('first-time provision of a bare host') and when-not-to-use ('do NOT also call inspect_target, plan_clone, apply_clone, or install_component for the same host and change'), naming the four alternatives to use instead for step-by-step control.

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