Create customer application recipe

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare idempotency and non-destructiveness), the description discloses irreversibility ('immutable'), the resolve-then-pin digest behavior, the pending-validation resume loop, and the required applications:manage scope. These are material behaviors not captured in the 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-loads the core action, then the workflow, then the preconditions and permission. Dense but each sentence contributes; the closing confirmation list is slightly enumerative but useful for a 9-param tool.

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 complex 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation's semantics, the async validation/resume path, digest pinning, the env-vs-secrets contract, preconditions, and the required permission. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameter meanings. The description largely restates the env/secret_names distinction that the schema covers, adding only marginal value (validation_id resume intent, 'names only' emphasis), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Uses specific verbs (resolve, validate, freeze) on a specific resource (the first immutable customer-owned recipe revision) and explicitly distinguishes itself from install/start behavior. An agent can differentiate it from create_application_recipe_revision and install_application_recipe without opening any schema.

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 explicit workflow guidance: confirm service/name/compose/variables/registry bindings first, and if validation is pending, retain the ID and poll get_application_recipe_validation then retry with validation_id. Also states the exclusion that it saves a definition only and does not install or start containers.

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