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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=false, but the description goes further: it discloses the mcp:write permission requirement, the exact validation surface of dry_run (ownership, table-name collisions, splitter conflicts), that blocked previews return blockers, and that repeating the same intent resumes saved progress. That last point independently corroborates the idempotentHint with concrete mechanism.

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?

Four dense sentences, purpose front-loaded, with dry_run behavior and auth requirement following in priority order. No filler, though the final sentence about resume behavior could be folded into the dry_run discussion for tighter flow.

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 7-parameter composite mutation tool with nested objects, the description covers safety profile, preview semantics, auth, and repeat-invocation behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The remaining gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to the individual create/publish sibling tools.

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 every parameter including nested objects is already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what is there. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Provisions') and enumerates the exact resources created (table, routing rule, optional inbox, published logical splitter), so the composite nature of the operation is clear. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools (tables.create, routing_rules.create, splitters.create_logical) it bundles, leaving the agent to infer that this is the one-shot alternative.

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?

Gives clear operational context: must be an existing owned project, both preview and apply require mcp:write, and dry_run:true is the preview path. However, it never states when to prefer this composite tool over calling the individual sibling tools, which is the most likely routing decision an agent faces.

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