Add Firebase to a GCP project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the most important behavioral trait: this is a long-running operation returning an Operation resource that must be polled via its `done` field. It omits permission/auth requirements, idempotency, and what happens if Firebase is already enabled, so it is not fully complete but adds substantial value.

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?

Two tight sentences: the purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the async/polling behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential return-value behavior (Operation resource, `done` field, polling), which is what an agent most needs. Minor gaps around permissions and re-invocation behavior keep it from being fully 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 description coverage is 100% and the single projectId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT default. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Enables Firebase on an existing GCP project, turning it into a Firebase project'), and the phrase 'existing GCP project' implicitly distinguishes it from gcp_create_project and the read-only firebase_get_project/firebase_list_projects siblings. An agent can identify the action without opening the 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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'existing GCP project' — it does not explicitly say when to reach for this versus gcp_create_project (new project) or how it relates to firebase_get_project. No exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given.

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