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

Annotations only give readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds preconditions (balance must cover the pause, human review blocks it), the automatic top-up behavior, the cost profile ('Free'), and an explicit non-effect (does not start servers). Those are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three dense sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The middle sentence is slightly compressed into an awkward fragment ('It doesn't start servers: then lavela.compute_lifecycle action start'), but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter mutation with an output schema and idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description covers the remaining gaps: preconditions, refusal cases, default automatic behavior, alternatives, and cost. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema fully covers the surface and there is nothing for the description to add. Baseline for zero parameters applies, though the description does usefully imply that project/instance identity is not passed here (IDs come from lavela.project_overview).

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 and resource ('lift a compute pause from the wallet running out') and immediately scopes it against the close sibling, clarifying it is the billing-pause resume rather than a server start. An agent can distinguish it from lavela.compute_lifecycle and lavela.destroy_compute without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the alternative for a related-but-different need (lavela.compute_lifecycle action 'start'), tells where IDs come from (lavela.project_overview), and states when this call is refused (balance still short, or a person must review the pause). It also notes the common case where the action is automatic, which prevents unnecessary calls.

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