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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), disclosing honest limits: an in-flight worker may finish its step and artifacts are kept/reused, money already spent is spent, nothing is deleted, and production resumes later. Also declares the write-auth requirement and $0 cost — rich behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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, then spends each subsequent clause on a distinct, load-bearing fact (side effects, limits, idempotency, auth, cost). No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains what changes, what survives, reversibility/resumption, idempotency, and auth. 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 coverage is only 50% (project_id has no description), and the description never explains either parameter. It implies project scoping via 'a project's production', but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the names, leaving the undocumented project_id to inference.

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 (stops) and resource (a project's production), then enumerates the concrete effects: line moves drive → manual, live runs (script, build, final render) are marked cancelled. An agent knows exactly what this tool does 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?

Usage is implied by the semantics (halt an in-flight production), but the description never states when to reach for this vs. doing nothing or using a sibling like get_project_status, nor any preconditions beyond requires-write. Adequate but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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