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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by signaling that startup is a blocking/awaited operation ("after startup completes") and that state becomes running. It does not state permission requirements or what happens on a failed start.

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, fully front-loaded: the action and precondition come first, the completion semantics second. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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?

With a rich output schema and annotation coverage, the description needn't explain returns, yet it does repeat the returned fields (name, provider, state=running), which is mildly redundant. For a single-parameter, low-complexity tool it is otherwise sufficient to call 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 100% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts an id from create/list or a display name from info. The description adds nothing about the name argument beyond echoing that it is returned, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Resume a stopped Celesto Cloud computer" gives a specific verb (resume/start), resource (Cloud computer), and precondition (stopped), which separates it cleanly from siblings like delete, exec, or create. It stops short of naming an alternative or edge case (e.g., already-running computers), so it lands at clear-but-not-exemplary.

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 word "stopped" implies the usage context, but the description never states explicitly when to call start versus stop, create, or exec, nor what happens if the computer is already running. Usage is inferred from a single adjective rather than stated.

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