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

The annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds behavior that the annotations do not cover: the change is staged until the next Deploy, and it proceeds without human approval ('asks no human'). Both details materially affect how an agent should sequence the call. It still does not describe what happens on name collision or to the volume on discard.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The staging sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 but fully described parameters, the description covers what the tool does, what it mutates, when the change takes effect, and that confirmation is implicit. It is missing what the call returns (e.g., the volume identity) and how to undo the staged change, but it is otherwise adequate for a 7-parameter mutation.

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 field-level meaning (name uniqueness, path pattern, size default, expect_revision) is already documented. The description adds only the coupling between service and path, which the schema descriptions also state; the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Volume, persistent storage, and mount it into a Service at a path.' That is a clear, concrete action statement. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the many sibling volume tools (volume_mirror, volume_move, volume_restore); the meaning is clear, but the routing is left implicit.

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?

'Staged until the next Deploy' tells an agent when the effect becomes visible, which helps with call ordering. However, the description never says when to use volume_add instead of volume_update, volume_restore, or volume_move, and it gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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