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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond, disclosing the 30-minute expiry, one-link-per-service constraint, the CONSENT_REQUIRED first-call flow, and that the deployed server is billed to the lavela wallet. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking.

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 description is dense yet front-loaded, opening with what the link is before moving to handoff, polling, consent, and billing. Every clause carries information, though the packing of five distinct facts into a few sentences is slightly heavy.

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 mutating link-generation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the deliverable, expiry, handoff instruction, polling next step, consent loop, and payment source. Return-value detail is unnecessary because no output schema exists and the verbatim `url` is called out.

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 50%: `service` is documented in the schema (default 'web'), but `projectId` has no description anywhere. The description adds meaning by noting 'One link per service', clarifying the service parameter's role, but does not explain projectId, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific deliverable (a one-time browser link) and its precise scope (code that isn't on GitHub yet), with a concrete mechanic (connect GitHub and pick a repo, or drag in the folder). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like provision_compute_from_repo or connect_github without opening either 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?

It gives clear usage context ('code that isn't on GitHub yet') and the follow-up workflow (hand the url over verbatim, then poll lavela.compute_build_status {projectId}). However, it never names an explicit alternative for already-GitHub-hosted code, so the when-not-to-use case is only implied.

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