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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so 'Nothing is deleted' largely restates what structured data provides. The genuinely additive piece is naming the recovery paths (publish_gateway / rollback_gateway), but the description says nothing about what happens to in-flight traffic or whether the gateway config itself survives intact.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the effect and followed immediately by the safety/recovery fact. No filler, no redundancy.

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, non-destructive, idempotent lifecycle toggle with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and how to undo it. Only a note on what 'offline' means operationally (traffic rejection vs config teardown) 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('From list_gateways'), so the schema already tells the agent where the ID comes from. The description adds no further meaning about gateway_id, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not additive.

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 + resource + effect: 'Stop the gateway answering at its URL,' which is unmistakably different from publish_gateway or rollback_gateway. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling lifecycle tools without opening any schema.

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 makes the use case clear (take a gateway offline) and routes the agent to publish_gateway or rollback_gateway for restoring it. It doesn't state exclusions or preconditions (e.g. whether the gateway must be currently published), but the intended context is unambiguous.

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