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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fully discloses the interactive elicitation behavior, warning that it will always ask for parameters regardless of provided values. It also specifies what the LLM should never do (provide defaults, guesses, or additional parameters), which is critical for correct use.

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 purpose but becomes repetitive with multiple CRITICAL warnings and an emoji. It is organized, but some sentences could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

The description covers the unusual elicitation behavior and calling rules thoroughly, addressing the main risk of guessing parameters. It does not describe return values, but this is not essential for a create operation with no output schema.

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?

The description does not explain the meaning of 'ref,' and the input schema also lacks a description, leaving zero semantic coverage. It mentions parameters (name, use_case, service_catalog_source_canonical) that are not in the schema, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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 'Create a new Cycloid stack from a blueprint,' clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes this create tool from sibling list tools.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool and gives explicit instructions about elicitation versus parameter-provided calls. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the create vs list distinction is implied.

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