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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, but the description goes well beyond them: the sweep cadence (about once a minute), the consequence that billing stops, the machine is destroyed, and that redeploying restores the same share URL. It also clarifies that passing a value sets or moves the teardown and omitting cancels it.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the parameter behavior, then layers the sweep timing, semantics, and use case. Three sentences, each carrying weight, with 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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, an output schema covering returns, and full schema coverage of both parameters, the description fills the remaining gaps (timing precision, irreversibility/redeploy behavior, cancellation). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100% -- both the duration format/min/max and the project_id are already documented in the schema. The description's restatement of '45m, 2h, 1d' and the omit-to-cancel behavior mirrors rather than extends the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (schedule) applied to a specific resource (a spawnpoint project's teardown), and the automatic-terminate semantics cleanly distinguish it from an immediate terminate. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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?

Explicitly frames the use case ('Right for demos, reviews, and anything that should not bill overnight') and explains the omit-to-cancel branch, giving clear context. It stops short of naming terminate_project as the immediate alternative for when scheduling isn't wanted.

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