Trigger provision action

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that execution happens 'immediately on the hosting server', emphasizing real-time impact, which aligns with and enriches the annotation. No contradiction.

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, purposeful sentences. The first defines the operation, the second provides a lookup pointer, and the third warns about immediate execution. No filler or redundant information.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, parameter discovery, and execution risk. It lacks return value details, but given the tool's nature as a trigger, this is acceptable. The warning about production impact compensates for the missing output spec.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining how to obtain function_id (via list_provision_functions), which helps the agent correctly populate that parameter. It also lists example function types, clarifying the semantic range of function_id.

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 clearly states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'provisioning function on a contract product', with concrete examples (setup, suspend, unsuspend, terminate, getUsage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_provision_functions and cancel_contract_product by focusing on executing a generic provisioning action.

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 explicitly directs the agent to 'Find function IDs with list_provision_functions', providing a clear alternative for discovery. It also warns 'PRODUCTION: executes immediately', implying caution and real-world impact, but it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like cancel_contract_product.

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