Install customer application recipe

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

Annotations only cover safety/idempotency hints; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the operation is queued asynchronously, results deliberately omit secret values, follow-up status work belongs to the portal, and a first-runtime restart is possible. It also states a required scope and a secret-handling rule, none of which the annotations convey.

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 sentences, each load-bearing: action, pre-call confirmation/secret rule, then result/ownership and permission. The verb is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return behavior (secrets omitted, portal handles status/reveal). Combined with the async/queue disclosure, permission requirement, and restart consent, an agent has everything needed to call this safely for an 8-parameter destructive-adjacent install.

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 meaning the schema cannot: secrets are supplied by NAME at install time and their values must never be echoed back in confirmation text. That clarifies the practical semantics of the secrets object and the confirmation flags.

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 ('Queue installation'), an exact resource ('one exact validated customer-owned recipe revision'), and scope limits ('one exact', 'validated'). An agent can distinguish this from install_application (catalog apps), create_application_recipe_revision, and validate_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 an explicit pre-call confirmation checklist (service, project, revision, secret names, restart) and a hard prerequisite ('Requires applications:manage'), plus routing guidance that status/reveal belongs to the VPSnet portal. It does not name the sibling tools it complements (validate_application_recipe, install_application), so no explicit alternatives/exclusions are stated.

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