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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds material context beyond them: no new restore points are taken, existing restore points remain restorable, and the required backups.manage permission. This is exactly the extra context annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, side effects, confirmation guardrail, permission), with the scope statement front-loaded. No filler.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, side effects, irreversibility of prior restore points, the required permission, and the confirmation requirement. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a guardrail by insisting confirm must be the stack's own name typed exactly, clarifying it is not the cluster name — reinforcing the safety requirement beyond the schema wording.

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 (Turn OFF) plus resource (scheduled backup protection for a stack), making it immediately distinguishable from the sibling protect_stack. The parenthetical CLI reference further anchors what operation this maps to.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool applies by describing consequences (no new restore points; existing ones kept). It doesn't explicitly name protect_stack as the inverse alternative, but the scope is unambiguous for an agent weighing it against the sibling.

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