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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds the critical missing context: exactly what is destroyed (uncommitted changes, including those retained from a prior automatic stop), the 30-minute auto-stop / 24-hour retention lifecycle, what is explicitly preserved (deployed app and commits), the auth requirement (read-write token), and the idempotent stopped=false result.

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?

Leads with the definition and effect, then the destructive scope, then the usage rule, then the safety boundary (deployed app untouched), then idempotency and auth. Sentences are dense but each carries distinct, decision-relevant information.

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 destructive one-param mutation with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it irreversibly removes, what survives, when to prefer waiting for auto-stop, and what the result reports — the output schema handles return structure.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('the managed project id (from list_projects)'), so the description adds essentially nothing beyond the schema. Baseline for a fully-covered single-param schema is a 3.

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 project's draft') and defines the resource inline as 'the running copy that sync_files fills,' immediately disambiguating it from deployed artifacts and from siblings like publish_draft or stop_commit. It also names the concrete effects (removes pod and dev_url).

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 conditions ('when the user wants the draft and its unsaved changes gone, or to free one of the 3 draft slots') and an explicit when-not ('It is not routine cleanup: a draft stops by itself after 30 minutes...'), so the agent knows the automatic alternative and doesn't need to call this tool for idle drafts.

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