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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes further by explaining the concrete consequence: a repeat call with the same planId returns the same project rather than creating a second one or charging twice. It also discloses credit spend, the asynchronous return before rendering completes, and the approval gate that blocks plan_overlay_pack — none of which appear in the structured fields.

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?

Dense but purposeful: one sentence per concern (prerequisite, action, idempotency, async follow-up, downstream gate). Slightly front-loaded on the OAuth setup rather than the core action, and the setup URL consumes space, but nothing is wasted padding.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs to invoke correctly and continue the workflow: auth prerequisite, what is consumed and charged, idempotent retry semantics, the async boundary, and the exact next tool calls. No output schema exists, but the description names the key return field (designPackage.imageUrl) itself.

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?

With one fully documented parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema carries the load. The description reinforces provenance ('a plan from plan_design_sheet') and the idempotency keyed on planId, but adds no format or validation detail beyond what the schema and annotations already state.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Consumes a plan from plan_design_sheet, spending its quoted credits and creating the project'), which distinguishes it cleanly from sibling plan_design_sheet (planning) and approve_design_sheet (approval). An agent can identify the operation 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?

Gives explicit preconditions (approved AlertForge account connection, OAuth sign-in), the required upstream source (a plan from plan_design_sheet), and the exact downstream sequence: call get_pack_status to advance rendering, show designPackage.imageUrl, then call approve_design_sheet. It also warns that plan_overlay_pack will refuse until approval is recorded, which is genuine when-to-use routing.

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