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

With no annotations the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does: it discloses that no Docker/Portainer connection occurs, that secrets are never transmitted but emitted as CHANGEME placeholders, and that confirm requires explicit user consent. It still omits permission/privilege implications and only alludes to the 'ready' output flag.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces and immediately followed by the safety constraints. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the trailing consent rule is somewhat redundant with the schema's confirm description.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool the description covers secrets handling, consent, and readiness gating well. Gaps remain around allow_privileged/allow_default_secrets semantics and what the produced plan contains, but the critical safety context is present.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented; the description nonetheless adds real meaning for local_secrets (names of secrets left as CHANGEME) and confirm (explicit-consent gating). allow_default_secrets remains unexplained in both schema and description.

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 artifact ('Składa plan wdrożenia') plus the two targets (Docker, Portainer) and explicitly negates network contact. This is unambiguous against the retrieval-oriented siblings get_app and list_apps.

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 clear preconditions for acting on the plan ('tylko gdy ready jest true i użytkownik wybrał cel') and a gating rule for confirm ('dopiero po wyraźnej zgodzie użytkownika'), plus an explicit prohibition on sending credentials. It never names alternatives, though none of the siblings is a real substitute.

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