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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds valuable disclosures: never returns secret values, does NOT modify workload env/volumes, and creates/updates policy binding. It also explains the resume behavior of paused deployments. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then proceeds through prerequisites, safety, non-behaviors, and resource pointers. Every sentence earns its place—no filler. The length is appropriate for a tool with 6 parameters and important caveats.

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?

Given the complexity (mutation, prerequisites, security considerations) and presence of output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It covers identity creation, policy binding, secret existence, non-modification of env/volumes, and references the skill runbook. No critical gaps remain.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'pass the name only' indirectly through schema descriptions but not in the tool description itself. Schema already handles parameter semantics thoroughly.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: "Grant an EXISTING workload access to a secret" and explains the mechanism (ensures identity, creates/updates policy binding with reveal permission). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_identity or create_policy by framing it as a composite grant operation, not just identity or policy creation.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites and alternatives: workload must already exist (call create_workload first for new workloads), secret must exist (use setup-secret skill if missing), and points to get_cpln_skill("setup-secret") as recommended reading. It also mentions the behavioral consequence of deployment pausing until access is granted, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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