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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value beyond them by clarifying 'Deletes nothing' (reassuring against service_remove confusion) and disclosing that an approval gate may interrupt the call. It stops short of explaining the approval/retry flow or wait behavior, which would be needed for a 5.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action and its non-destructive guarantee come first, and the approval caveat follows.

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?

Covers purpose, non-destructiveness, and the possibility of an approval gate for a mutation tool with no output schema. However, with 7 parameters at low schema coverage, the request_key idempotency key, wait_seconds, and the approval-resume flow are undocumented, leaving real gaps.

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?

With only 29% schema description coverage across 7 parameters, the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions server, project, environment, request_key, or wait_seconds, and the 'approve' hint does not explain the approval parameter's retry semantics.

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 ('Stop a Service's containers') and adds the reversibility scope ('until started again'), which separates it from service_remove and service_start. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over service_restart, service_remove, or service_start. The 'May stop to ask a human to approve' line is behavioral context, not a when-to-use rule, so usage is left almost entirely to inference.

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