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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description supplies the context that makes that credible: players are disconnected and running charges end, but world and settings persist. The autoStart wake-on-join behavior is a non-obvious side effect disclosed nowhere else in the structured data.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary effect, then alternatives and caveats in decreasing priority. Every clause carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 side effects, persistence, alternatives, and even notes the return value ('Returns the server'), which matters since there is no output schema. The only gap is the absence of any parameter guidance for a tool that mutates a specific server.

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 reported at 0% for the single nested path.serverId parameter, and the description says nothing about it — no id format, no provenance beyond what the nested schema already states ('the id field from listServers'). For a tool whose only input identifies the target resource, the description leaves parameter meaning entirely to the schema.

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 (shuts a running server down) plus the resulting state (sleeps). It explicitly separates itself from restartServer and from deleteServer's implied semantics by noting the world and settings are kept.

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 an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it ('For a reboot use restartServer'), plus a caveat about autoStartEnabled waking the server and the sibling that disables it (updateServer). An agent has everything needed to route between startServer, restartServer, stopServer and updateServer.

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