kinematic_provision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool only records a request, does not charge, and does not spin up anything immediately, which prevents misconceptions about side effects. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a simple request-recording tool this is sufficient.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and includes the most important caveat (no charge/spin-up) without any filler. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 the tool's simplicity (a request recorder) and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It omits what the call returns (e.g., an ID or confirmation), but the existence of a sibling checkout_status tool implies the user tracks progress elsewhere, so for a provisioning request this is adequate.

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% for all three parameters, each with clear descriptions, so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional meaning about how the parameters should be used together, leaving the baseline at 3 without justification to go higher.

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 names a specific verb ('Request') and resource ('private Kinematic Drive'), and clarifies it's 'managed onboarding' that only records the request. It distinguishes itself from siblings: checkout likely handles actual delivery and status handles tracking, so the agent can tell them apart.

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 implies this is the initial step in a managed onboarding flow ('Records the request; the UBOS team mints an isolated drive for you'), and explicitly states 'No charge or spin-up happens from this call,' signaling it is not the action that creates the drive. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when not to use this tool.

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