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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the bar is lower; the description still adds substantial context beyond them. It discloses the concurrency model (one operation per module, none concurrent with its project's operations), that it restores the pre-freeze pod count, and quotes the refusal messages verbatim along with recovery steps.

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?

Purpose and no-op behavior are front-loaded, then concurrency and retry semantics follow in a logical order. Every sentence carries distinct operational information, though the third sentence is dense enough that it could be tightened slightly.

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 no output schema, the description still covers the risky surfaces an agent needs: concurrency conflicts, retry guidance, and error strings. It does not describe the resulting module/pod state after success or expected latency, which is a minor gap for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single required parameter module_id is already documented in the schema with a pointer to list_modules. The description implies the target module but adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the structured field, 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Start a frozen module's pods again') and immediately scopes it against the opposite case ('A running module is left as it is'). This clearly contrasts with freeze_module and distinguishes it from a generic restart, so the agent can pick it correctly without opening the 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?

It states the precondition (module must be frozen), the no-op case, and the exact failure modes with remediation: wait for the running job via get_job_status then call again, and retry in a few minutes during a RationalBloks update. Explicit when-to-use and when-to-retry guidance is provided, including the named sibling tool to call for recovery.

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