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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot: the asynchronous provisioning state machine (call again until state is 'attached'), the ~1 minute / 10-second polling cadence, that variables are set only on the attaching call, that the app restarts, that values are never returned, and that a Valet account is required.

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 the create-vs-attach branching are front-loaded and every sentence carries operative detail, so the length is largely earned for an async, idempotent provisioning tool. It is still dense with ~14 sentences, and the aside about a new database being empty and the app creating its own tables is helpful but skippable, keeping it just short of 5.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what the call returns at each stage ('returning at once with state provisioning', the attaching call, values never returned) and where to verify the outcome. For a 6-parameter, open-world, multi-call workflow, an agent has everything needed to sequence the calls correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining when provider is mandatory, what env_prefix is for (colliding variable names), and the invariant that plan, resource, and env_prefix must be repeated identically on every call for one resource. That repetition requirement is a real semantic constraint not obvious from the parameter list.

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 a precise verb+resource and immediately defines what a 'resource' is ('a named set of environment variables, such as a database's connection string, that the app reads as secrets'), which no sibling name conveys. This clearly separates it from attach_channel, attach_connector, attach_skill, and detach/destroy_resource.

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?

It states explicit conditions for each path: pass a provider from list_catalog_resources when the org has no resource by that name, attach by name alone when one exists, pass env_prefix when two resources would collide, and publish the app first because it must exist. It also routes the agent to get_service to confirm the restart and to list_catalog_resources for the variable names.

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