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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by saying the active version is reactivated (i.e., no version selection occurs), but it does not say what happens if the project is already running, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and its effect front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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 one-parameter state-toggle tool with rich annotations and no output schema, this is nearly complete: precondition and effect are stated. The remaining gap is disambiguation from deploy/redeploy and clarity on whether 'project' and 'deployment' refer to the same object here.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents project_id and its pattern. The description adds no additional meaning about the id format or how it is resolved, so 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?

The description names a concrete verb and effect: start a stopped deployment again and reactivate its active version. However, it calls the resource a 'deployment' while the tool name and parameter are 'project', which blurs the boundary with the sibling tools deploy and redeploy for an agent choosing between them.

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' implicitly encodes the precondition for calling this tool, which is useful selection signal. It never states explicitly when not to use it, nor directs the agent to deploy/redeploy or stop_project as alternatives, so the guidance remains inferential.

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