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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it discloses the return payload and warns that the private editor key is 'the only way back in' and that nothing is live until deploy. It could say more about auth/terms requirements and repeat-call effects.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then returns, then the key constraint. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by explaining what creation returns (public address, editor key). It covers the create/deploy distinction and the irrecoverable-key warning. It stops short of noting any permission or terms prerequisites beyond what the schema's acceptTerms field already carries.

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 all three parameters (template, publicKey, acceptTerms) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a lambda') plainly. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'deploy' by noting 'Nothing is online until deploy', so an agent can separate creation from going live, though no sibling is named 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor named alternatives. The workflow hint ('Nothing is online until deploy') implies the creation-then-deploy sequence, but this is inference rather than stated guidance.

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