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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses real external side effects ('minting real Stripe prices', same helper as /api/apps/sync-plans), the overwrite guard, and a security guarantee that push-mode webhook secrets only appear in post_steps and never in kit files. This is exactly the extra context the destructiveHint/openWorldHint flags can't convey.

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 purpose and ordered step, then the side effects and safety rules. It is a dense compound paragraph, but each clause carries distinct information an agent needs; minor tightening would help 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?

Compensates for the missing output schema by describing the return artifact (kit contents: client, plans.json, sync script, INTEGRATION.md) and post_steps. The nested answers object is only partly covered, but the agent has enough to call the tool correctly and safely.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially: it explains that plan_catalog is applied/minted into real Stripe prices and that confirm_overwrite controls overwrite behavior, and it ties push_mode to the webhook secret. However, success_url, cancel_url, trial_days, tier, monthly_price/yearly_price and payment_type are left entirely to the raw schema.

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: mints Stripe prices from answers.plan_catalog, registers/updates the app, and returns a downloadable integration kit. It also places itself in a sequence ('Step 2 of onboarding'), which implicitly distinguishes it from plan_app_kit (step 1), but 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?

The 'Step 2 of onboarding' framing gives clear sequencing context, and the overwrite rule ('refuses to overwrite ... unless answers.confirm_overwrite is true') tells the agent exactly when the call will succeed or fail. No explicit when-not or named alternative tools are given, though.

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