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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing that disabling web traffic on the last server serving a domain requires human approval and that the call may pause for approval. This is meaningful behavioral context the agent cannot get from annotations alone, though the approval re-invocation contract is left to the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The final sentence ('May stop to ask a human to approve') partially restates the preceding approval sentence, costing a little efficiency but not much.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with 29% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves too much unexplained: build_concurrency format, request_key purpose, and how this tool relates to server_drain/server_clean. The approval behavior is covered, but the rest is not.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate, yet it only loosely maps three booleans (builds, services, web traffic) to accepts_builds/accepts_services/accepts_ingress. build_concurrency, request_key, the server name pattern, and the approval ID semantics receive no explanation from the description.

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 (set) and resource (server) plus the configurable dimensions (builds, services, web traffic), which map to the boolean parameters. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like server_drain, which also manipulates traffic, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as server_drain or server_clean. The approval-flow sentence describes a behavior rather than a usage condition, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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