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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, but the description adds important operational behavior: it restores the remembered replica count or defaults to 1, removes the park marker, and returns a conflict when the deployment is not parked. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by restore semantics and then the failure condition and sibling reference. No sentence is redundant or wasted.

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?

Given a simple mutation tool with rich schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, effect, and failure mode well. It does not describe return values, though the effect is clear enough for correct invocation; this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 100%, so the schema already documents application_id, cluster_id, and namespace. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource (wake a parked deployment of an Application) and immediately scopes it to parked deployments. It also names its inverse sibling, park_application_deployment, making it distinguishable from related deployment tools like scale_deployment or restart_deployment.

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?

Explicitly states the condition to use it (wake a parked deployment), the condition under which it is refused (deployment not parked), and names the counterpart operation. An agent has clear routing information without opening the schema.

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