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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context those hints cannot: the release is reinstalled from the already-built cached image with no rebuild, and nothing is destroyed. It also surfaces the read-write token requirement, which the annotations do not encode.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carries the action and mechanism, followed by two short clauses covering the inverse relationship and the anti-use-cases. There is no repetition of the title and 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?

For a single-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: input source, no-rebuild semantics, token requirement, and sibling disambiguation. Return values need not be described because the output schema covers them.

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 100% and the job_id property already explains that it comes from list_deployments and restarts a stopped commit from the cached image. The description's 'by job_id' adds no syntax, format or provenance beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented single parameter 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 (start) and resource (a previously stopped per-commit deployment) and anchors it to a familiar UI action (dashboard Actions → Start). It explicitly names what it is not (deploy_project, delete_commit) and what it inverts (stop_commit), so an agent can separate it from all relevant siblings without opening a 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?

Gives the positive condition (a stopped per-commit deployment, identified by job_id), the explicit alternatives and when they apply (deploy_project for a new build, delete_commit when destruction is intended), and a prerequisite (read-write token). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives structure an agent needs.

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