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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description disambiguates precisely what that means here: pods are torn down while Helm metadata, DB rows, artifacts, volumes and data survive, and the change is reversible. It adds what annotations cannot — side effects, the production-commit refusal, the read-write token requirement, and the contrast with permanent deletion.

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-loads the highest-risk fact ("Affects the live site") and organizes the rest as what is kept, what is removed, contrast with delete_commit, and preconditions. Dense but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information; there is minor overlap with the schema's job_id text.

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?

An output schema and full annotations are present, and the description still covers everything an agent needs before invoking: impact on the live site, reversibility, what is preserved, the sibling contrast, the production exclusion, and the token requirement.

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 single job_id parameter already documents its source (list_deployments), reversibility and the canonical-commit refusal. The description largely restates the same facts rather than adding new argument-level detail, 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 and resource ("Stops a per-commit deployment (by job_id)") and immediately maps it to a familiar equivalent (dashboard Actions → Stop). It explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings, delete_commit and start_commit, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use (stop rather than delete), the alternative (delete_commit for permanent removal, start_commit to restore), and a hard exclusion (the canonical/production commit is refused, promote another first). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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