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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it is the ONLY way a secret entered after the last deploy reaches running containers, via re-pinning the secret set version. This is exactly the kind of hidden consequence the agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the critical secret-behavior aside. 'This is the restart' mildly restates the name/title, and the em-dash clause is long, but nearly every sentence carries useful information.

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?

No output schema, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, with 0% schema coverage the idempotency_key parameter is left unexplained, and the description offers no guidance on its use for a tool marked non-idempotent — a meaningful omission.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, yet it never mentions idempotency_key and only implies project_id via 'the project's current version.' One of two parameters is entirely undocumented anywhere, which is a real gap for a mutating call.

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: 'Re-apply the project's current version: the same images, deployed again.' The phrase 'the same images, deployed again' implicitly separates it from deploy (which would push new images), though no sibling is named explicitly. Clear purpose with only light sibling differentiation.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Call it after a human has filled in the form behind get_secrets_link on a project that is already running,' naming a sibling tool and a precondition. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., deploy vs restart), so it's strong but not fully routing.

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