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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds genuinely new context: 'installs nothing', the SSH prerequisite for mode=ssh, and that privileged-command previews are returned. It does not cover failure modes or permission requirements beyond SSH, so it stops short of a 5.

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 purpose and output vocabulary are front-loaded, then routing guidance, then the read-only caveat. It is a single dense paragraph, so it is efficient but slightly packed with semicolon-joined clauses rather than clearly separated lines.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, a fully described schema, and an output schema handling return values, the description only needs to supply purpose, routing and the read-only/SSH caveat – all present. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the nested target object is already documented. The description reinforces one constraint (SSH needed for mode: ssh) but adds no syntax or default semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Compare a target against the portable Workbench profile') and names the exact output classification (install/present/manual), which immediately separates it from apply_clone, inspect_target and verify_clone. An agent can identify the tool's job 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 when-to-use ('before apply_clone for granular control of an existing profile') and when-to-use-something-else ('for a first-time end-to-end provision use bootstrap_host instead'), even explaining what bootstrap_host composes. Both alternatives and the selecting condition are named.

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