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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description goes beyond them by naming the destructive consequence (a queued restoreBackup replaces the current world) and the cost gate (account balance must cover the server's size). It adds real context, though it does not say what happens if balance runs out mid-boot or what the returned server object contains.

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?

The critical scoping clause (asleep vs online) is front-loaded and every clause carries information the agent needs. It is dense and slightly run-on with semicolons, but there is almost no waste.

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 single-parameter, output-schema-less mutation tool, the description covers cost prerequisites, side effects (mod fetching, world replacement), the contrast tool, and how to confirm success. Nothing an agent needs before or after calling it is missing.

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 itself documents serverId as 'the id field from listServers'. The description adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond that, so it neither compensates for the 0% coverage metric nor is needed to – the schema carries it.

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 (wakes/starts) and resource (an asleep server) plus the outcome (players can join at its address). It explicitly contrasts with restartServer for already-online servers, so the agent can distinguish it from siblings like keepServerAwake and resetServer.

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 the when (server is asleep and should be reachable from the internet), the when-not (an online server — use restartServer instead), and even the follow-up loop (poll listServers until statusDetail is server-online). That is explicit routing plus a post-call procedure.

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