Apply bulk config

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the concrete consequence: the body 'is passed through verbatim and can overwrite or remove existing fields'. That tells the agent what actually gets destroyed rather than just that the call is destructive. It stops short of covering failure/validation behavior or result shape, so not a full 5.

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, no filler. The usage trigger and scope come first, the destructive warning and alternative follow — front-loaded in the order an agent needs to make a decision.

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 destructive tool taking an unconstrained nested object with no output schema, the definition covers when-to-use and the overwrite risk, but leaves the agent with no notion of the expected body shape or what the call returns. Adequate for routing, thinner for actually constructing a correct invocation.

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 only 50%: the 'config' object is documented as an arbitrary verbatim body validated server-side, while 'project' has no description at all. The description reinforces the config semantics with the overwrite/removal warning but says nothing about what the config body should contain or what 'project' expects, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('apply a bulk, config-as-code style configuration to a Lizard project in one request') and explicitly scopes it to multi-resource edits ('multiple services/addons/secrets at once'). It distinguishes itself cleanly from the single-field siblings by naming 'service.*/secrets.* tools', so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants to apply a bulk... configuration') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named ('prefer the narrower service.*/secrets.* tools for single-field changes'). Both the when and the when-not are stated rather than inferred.

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