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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: automatically detecting the current phase and advancing through the provisioning sequence. However, it does not cover potential side effects, idempotency, failure handling, or what happens if the phase is already complete, which is a gap for a state-advancing tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and behavior, followed by targeted usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, the advancement sequence, and the trigger condition. It could optionally mention the outcome of a successful run, but the current content is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds context about when to use it (after user actions) without needing to explain parameters. It does not introduce any parameter-related ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Resume provisioning from where you left off' and describes the specific behaviors of detecting the current phase and advancing through WireGuard → DNS → TLS → verification. This distinguishes it from siblings like provision_start and provision_status by implying continuation rather than initiation or status checking.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Run this after each user action (connecting WireGuard, adding DNS records).' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a resume operation.

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