gateway.provision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool returns immediately with a job_id and directs the agent to poll gateway.provision_status for progress, covering the asynchronous execution model. It does not mention potential side effects beyond install/start (which is the intended function), but overall it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 a compact set of three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage context, and asynchronous behavior. No fluff, key information is front-loaded, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It explains what it does, when to use it, what to expect (job_id), how to track progress (poll provision_status), and when to use an alternative (request_capability). No critical missing context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already covers server_name with a description ('Name of the server to provision (from manifest)'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds workflow context by emphasizing the need for the 'exact server name' and connecting it to the request_capability discovery process, which enriches the parameter's meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Provision (install and start)') and the specific resource ('a specific MCP server from the manifest'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like gateway.request_capability (discovery) and gateway.provision_status (tracking) by focusing on the installation/start action.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this after reviewing candidates from gateway.request_capability' and 'Use gateway.request_capability instead if you don't know the exact server name.' This clearly tells when to use this tool versus the alternative, with a concrete workflow.

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