Generate Kubernetes manifests

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it writes only needed resources, uses placeholders for secrets, and never touches a cluster. It doesn't explicitly state idempotency, but the annotations cover that; the description adds value by explaining the placeholder behavior and the file-only side effect.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core action and then adds resource-type details and constraints. It is efficient, but the middle sentence listing resource types is somewhat long; still, every sentence earns its place by clarifying 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers the main side effects, the secret placeholder behavior, and the relationship to create_migration_plan. The main gap is that several parameters (path, output_dir, ingress_host, include_ingress) are not explained, but the overall behavior is clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions namespace and image_registry explicitly and explains their relationship to create_migration_plan, but it does not explain path, output_dir, ingress_host, or include_ingress. The description adds some meaning for two of six parameters, but the rest remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 tool writes Kubernetes YAML for a project into a per-project directory under generated/, and distinguishes it from cluster-touching operations by explicitly saying it writes files only. It also names the sibling create_migration_plan, which helps differentiate it from related planning tools.

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 explicitly says to pass the same namespace/image_registry used in create_migration_plan, and notes that the plan is re-derived from the project. It also clarifies that it does not touch a cluster, which tells the agent when not to use it (e.g., when the goal is to apply manifests, use apply_manifests instead).

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