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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does real work: it discloses that the call spends no gas and sends no transaction, that omitting allowedTools yields an agent that cannot call tools, and that type defaults to 'coordination'. Gaps remain on authentication requirements and failure behavior, but the disclosed traits are non-obvious and useful.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then constraints, then parameter defaults. Little waste, though the gas/transaction sentence could be tightened.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested permissionConfig object, the description covers key constraints but omits auth requirements (apiKey vs sessionToken) and what a successful call returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for permissionConfig.allowedTools and the type default, but leaves agentKind and environmentId (the sole required field) unexplained. Partial compensation only.

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 and resource: 'Create an agent in a workspace.' An agent can distinguish this from list/read/register siblings (veya_list_agents, veya_register_environment). No explicit sibling callout, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 describes constraints on the created agent but never says when to choose this tool over adjacent ones such as veya_create_environment or veya_register_environment. No when-to-use/when-not guidance is provided, leaving selection to inference.

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