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

Annotations only signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: deployment is asynchronous, so results must be verified with get_installed_template afterwards. It also implies that resources are created ('before anything is created') and that values mistakes can be caught early. This is meaningful added transparency, though it stops short of describing edge cases like name collisions or install-vs-upgrade behavior.

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 compact at about five sentences, with the purpose and required inputs front-loaded. Each subsequent sentence adds value: validation step, async behavior, and a recommendation to read the runbook. There is no redundancy or filler, making it an efficient and well-structured definition.

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 tool with 6 parameters and a mutating asynchronous operation, the description covers the essential workflow: required inputs, validation via preview_template, post-deployment verification, and reading the runbook. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Minor gaps remain around upgrade-vs-install conflict behavior, but overall the tool is adequately contextualized for an agent.

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%, with detailed explanations for every parameter already in the schema. The description does restate key relationships (values from get_template, version defaults to latest, gvc conditional) but adds little new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Install a catalog template as a new release." This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_template, uninstall_template, and upgrade_template. The outcome (a new installed release) is explicit, so an agent can select it without opening the 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?

Explicit guidance is given for when to use alternatives: preview_template for validating before creation, and get_installed_template for verifying after the asynchronous deployment. It also explains the conditional need for gvc ('unless the template creates its own') and recommends reading the runbook via get_cpln_skill before first use. This fully routes the agent through the correct workflow.

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