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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the key behavioral fact that the deployment is preserved rather than removed, clarifying the difference between a stop and a delete. It does not say whether the stopped state is resumable or what is returned, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the crucial non-destructive qualifier. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this is nearly complete. A brief note on resumability (vs deploy_start) or the resulting state would close the remaining 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?

Only one parameter (deploymentId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no format, identifier-source, or lookup guidance beyond what is documented, matching the baseline for a fully-covered 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?

Specific verb ('stop') plus resource ('a running deployment') with an explicit scope qualifier ('without deleting it'). This lets an agent distinguish it from nexusai_deploy_delete and nexusai_deploy_auto_destroy without inspecting 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?

Usage is implied by the 'running deployment' precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. when to stop vs delete vs auto-destroy, or that start can resume). The agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

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