Confirm Compose project adoption

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

Annotations already declare destructive/open-world/idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: variables must be re-entered because VPSnet never copies values, the source is stopped and replaced with the same verified named volumes, failure recovery 'fails closed', external-volume binding persists into later lifecycle actions, and secrets must never be echoed in results. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs for a destructive takeover.

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 operation and its one-time destructive nature, then layered with the confirmation checklist and secret-handling rule. Dense, but for a destructive 11-parameter tool nearly every sentence carries actionable weight; minor tightening is possible.

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?

Covers the preconditions, destructive consequences, failure semantics, and authorization requirement, which is comprehensive for a tool with no output schema. Pagination/return-shape details are unnecessary here, and the 11 parameters are fully documented in the schema; only the explicit prepare-then-confirm sequencing is left to inference.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by explaining the env/secrets split ('Re-enter every declared variable'), the variable-name-only confirmation requirement, and the no-secret-echo rule. It does not add per-parameter syntax, but the added semantic nuance over the schema justifies a 4.

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 (confirm), resource (Compose project adoption), and precise scope (one-time takeover of an eligible unexpired candidate). It also implicitly positions itself against the prepare operation it depends on, so an agent can distinguish it from the other compose-adoption siblings.

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 a concrete pre-call checklist ('Confirm the exact service, candidate, reconstructed recipe, variable NAMES, container/volume counts, and source-stop impact with the user first') and a hard prerequisite ('Requires applications:manage'). It stops short of explicitly naming prepare_application_compose_adoption as the required predecessor, but the 'returned by the prepare operation' reference and the checklist make the usage context clear.

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