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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely new context beyond that — projects going offline, billing stopping, and dependent tools returning a 'paused' response rather than waking the server. That last point is a non-obvious side effect an agent could not learn from the annotations or schema. It stops short of saying whether restart is disruptive to running builds or whether a paused server auto-resumes.

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: the first front-loads the action mapping, the second delivers the state semantics. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (a paused server stays down until started) is not buried.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives enough to call this correctly, including the counterintuitive 'does not wake' behavior. A minor gap remains around restart-specific impact (e.g., in-flight builds or unsaved state) and whether permission requirements apply.

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 enum already documents start/stop/restart semantics in nearly the same words used here ('stop pauses it', 'restart reboots it'). The description restates rather than extends that meaning, 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 concrete verb set (pause/stop, resume/start, reboot/restart) against a specific resource, and the parenthetical mapping to the enum values leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from lifecycle siblings such as delete_server, update_server, or get_server, so the reader must infer that boundary.

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 implies usage via the consequence model (a paused server stays down until started), but never states when an agent should prefer this tool over delete_server, update_server, or when to use restart rather than a stop+start pair. The mentions of prompt, exec, start_app, file tools and start_build describe downstream effects rather than selection guidance.

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