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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/open-world, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: which actions run as asynchronous operations and block on wait_seconds versus completing on return, that the response is the project as it then is, that delete_project leaves snapshots restorable, and that stop honors each service's grace period and restart policy.

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 action list, and each sentence carries information (operation semantics, return value, snapshot restriction). Some passages are densely telegraphic ('as is the end of a cancelled one'), but nothing is purely 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 13-parameter, 0-required, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the missing return-value statement and the async/sync split for each action. It is close to complete, with the remaining gap being explicit sibling routing for deploy and operation polling.

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 92%, so the schema carries most parameter detail (baseline 3). The description still adds meaning by tying operation_id/wait_seconds to the specific actions that run as operations and by stating that restore_snapshot only accepts this project's own snapshots, which the schema text does not make as explicit.

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?

The description enumerates the concrete verbs and resources this polymorphic tool performs (start/stop/restart services, recreate, back up, restore, cancel, set_source, delete volume/project) and states that exactly one action runs. It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like GetProject, but it never explicitly says that deploying is DeployProject's job, leaving one ambiguity against that sibling.

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 through the action enumeration and the schema-level 'at most one of ...' constraint rather than stated as when/when-not. It does give one explicit exclusion ('A database's snapshot as a new database is the person's to make, in the panel'), but no routing to siblings such as DeployProject or GetOperation for polling operations.

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