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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds blocking semantics ('waits up to wait_seconds for the job to finish') and return content ('container's final state'), neither of which is derivable from annotations alone. It omits what happens if the wait times out or the job fails.

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, action scope front-loaded, followed immediately by the timing behavior and the one routing caveat. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and a destructive mutation, the description usefully tells the agent that the call blocks and yields the final container state. Remaining gaps are minor (failure/timeout behavior), and the destructive profile is carried by annotations.

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 100%, including enum values, defaults, and the wait_seconds=0 immediate-return case, so the baseline is 3. The description's wait_seconds mention merely restates the schema and adds no syntax or format detail beyond 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 specific verbs (start, stop, restart) plus the resource (container) and platform (Cycle), which cleanly separates it from siblings such as reconfigure_container, delete_container, and cycle_control_environment. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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 conditional for the alternative: 'Use list_containers first only if unsure what exists.' That is real routing guidance, but it doesn't address when to choose this over reconfigure_container or the environment-level control tools.

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