Create addon

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by spelling out the concrete consequence — calling again silently creates a duplicate with the same name — which is exactly the failure mode an agent would otherwise hit. It omits cost implications and whether the addon can be removed later.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, and every clause earns its place — including the duplicate-creation warning, which is the highest-value line in the definition.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent provisioning call with no output schema and 50% param coverage warrants more: how the agent retrieves connection details afterward (secrets_refs? service_show?), what happens on partial failure, and whether duplicates can be cleaned up are all unaddressed. The trigger and duplicate warning are solid, but the post-creation story 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 coverage is 50%: name and region are documented in-schema (region even includes a 'call region_list first, do not guess' directive), while project is undocumented. The description only restates the type enum values and adds nothing about project scoping or name reuse rules — one sentence on what 'project' accepts would have compensated for the gap.

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 + resource: 'provision a managed database or storage addon (Postgres, Redis, or S3) in a Lizard project.' That clearly separates it from nearby siblings like volume_create and service_create, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

'Use this when the user wants to provision...' gives a clear trigger condition, and the second sentence rules out a tempting misuse ('it does not update an existing one'). No named alternative for updating or looking up an existing addon, so it stops short of a full when/when-not map.

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