gateway.provision

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses asynchronous behavior ('returns immediately with a job_id') and directs to poll for progress. Does not mention idempotency or error conditions, but covers the main behavioral trait. Minor gap but acceptable for a short description.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. First sentence defines core action, second gives usage context, third explains async return and alternative. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, async behavior, follow-up polling, and alternative tool. Lacks details on error handling or preconditions, but is largely complete given 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (only one parameter described in both schema and description). Description adds 'from manifest' context, but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Meets baseline but no extra value.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Provision (install and start)' and resource 'MCP server from the manifest', clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'gateway.request_capability' which is for when the exact server name is unknown. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: after reviewing candidates from gateway.request_capability. Also specifies when NOT to use: if server name is unknown, use gateway.request_capability instead. Gives follow-up action: poll gateway.provision_status. Provides clear context and exclusions.

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