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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses real side effects (minting actual Stripe prices via the sync-plans helper, registering/updating the app), a destructive-action guard (overwrite refused without confirm_overwrite), and a security property (secrets only returned in post_steps, never written to a kit file). These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a mutating tool.

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?

The workflow step is front-loaded and the sentences are dense but each carries distinct information (side effects, guard, output contents, secret handling). Slightly heavy for a single paragraph, but no filler sentences.

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, nested, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers side effects, outputs (kit contents, post_steps), and mutation guards. Remaining gap is that several nested input fields and the exact return shape are unspecified, but the essential calling context is present.

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% with nested objects, so the description should compensate. It adds real meaning to answers.plan_catalog (minted into real Stripe prices), answers.confirm_overwrite (overwrite gate), and push_mode (push-mode webhook secret), but leaves success_url, cancel_url, trial_days, and the monthly/yearly/payment_type distinctions undocumented. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Applies answers.plan_catalog by minting real Stripe prices ... registers/updates the app') and frames itself precisely as 'Step 2 of onboarding a new app onto SparkPay'. The unique outputs (integration kit + post_steps) distinguish it from siblings like plan_app_kit and setup_pricing_page without opening a 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?

The 'Step 2 of onboarding' framing implies a preceding step and a clear point in the workflow, and it states a conditional guard ('Refuses to overwrite ... unless answers.confirm_overwrite is true'). However, it never names the sibling alternative (e.g. plan_app_kit as the preview/first step), so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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