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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the critical one-time behavior: the secret appears EXACTLY ONCE, an already-enabled project never re-reveals it, and ask-policy connections require human approval. These are high-value operational facts an agent must know before invoking a destructive, non-idempotent 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?

Two tightly written sentences with the action and its irreversible consequence front-loaded. Every clause carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what is produced, that it is shown only once, and how approval-policy connections are handled. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exist, and the schema already covers the empty object shape.

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 precise verb and resource ('Mint the project identity secret') plus the downstream purpose ('so forms can require signed identify() calls'). This clearly separates it from fillo_disable_identity and fillo_identity_status without needing to open their schemas.

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 conveys the effect and a workflow detail (approval page, ask-policy approval link), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never explicitly routes the agent between enable, disable, and identity_status, so usage guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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