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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that a required admin permission is needed, the exact failure mode for view-only users (HTTP 403 insufficient_permissions with details.required_permission='admin'), that errors[0].message is user-facing, and that a retry returns the same error. This is rich, actionable behavioral context on top of the existing readOnly/idempotent/destructive 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the mutation and permission details. Efficient with little waste, though the error-handling sentence is dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds mutation, permission, and error behavior, making it fairly complete for this mutating tool, with the main gap being the under-documented parameters.

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 low (29%), so the description must carry more of the parameter burden. It only notes that idempotency_key is required and implies the method enum; the other parameters (server_name, container_hash, auth_token, dry_run, container_id) receive no explanation, leaving much of the schema's meaning unexplained.

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: 'Persists the chosen installation method on the container.' This is clearly a write operation, distinguishing it from the many read-oriented get/list siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is contrasted with, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: persisting a 'chosen' method signals this is a post-selection step in the installation flow. However, no alternatives are named and no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance is given relative to siblings like get_installation_scripts or register_and_provision.

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