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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is conveyed structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond them — the change applies without restarting the deployment — but omits prerequisites, permissions, and what happens when both scheduling parameters are supplied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and the non-restart guarantee second. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Three fully documented parameters and no output schema mean the definition is nearly self-sufficient once the description's capability statement is read. It only lacks guidance on parameter interaction (absolute vs relative) and permission requirements, which is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already explains deploymentId, the ISO-or-null absolute timestamp, and the relative hours value. The description's 'extend, reduce' wording loosely maps to autoDestroyHours but adds no format or precedence detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (set/extend/reduce/disable) against a specific resource (auto-destroy schedule for a deployment), which is clearly distinct from sibling mutations like deploy_delete, deploy_stop, or deploy_redeploy. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops 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?

The description says what can be changed but never says when to reach for this tool versus deploy_delete, deploy_stop, or deploy_redeploy. The phrase 'without restarting it' hints at a non-disruptive alternative but is not framed as selection guidance.

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