impreza_add_onion

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool provisions Tor + publishes the hidden service and persists the .onion address, but does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or impact on the existing clearnet route.

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 waste. Action, use case, and prerequisites are front-loaded and clearly separated.

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?

Given one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and prerequisites. It could mention the return value or post-conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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% with a description for deployment_id. The tool description adds context by explaining the parameter's role in the action, but the schema already provides sufficient clarity.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Add a Tor v3 hidden service') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on adding an .onion mirror to a clearnet-only deployment. No other sibling tool does this.

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?

The description provides explicit use case ('customer realized post-install they wanted Tor exposure') and prerequisites for catalog vs custom deployments. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but the tool is unique among siblings.

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