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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds the state-transition precondition (must already be stopped) but says nothing about side effects, resulting state, or permissions required.

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 tight sentence with zero waste and the action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized but borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 simple one-parameter action tool with annotations and no output schema, this is adequate but thin. It omits what the resulting deployment state is or whether the operation is synchronous, which would help an agent act confidently.

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% with a single deploymentId parameter documented as 'Deployment UUID.' The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 (Start) and resource (deployment) with the precondition that it acts on a stopped deployment. Clear enough to distinguish from the sibling nexusai_deploy_stop, though it does not name that counterpart explicitly.

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 phrase 'stopped deployment' implies the precondition for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like nexusai_deploy_redeploy or nexusai_deploy_rollback for other state changes.

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