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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description goes beyond that by disclosing that the operation resumes an existing deployment and may accrue GPU charges while running, which is real cost/side-effect context. It does not cover auth requirements, reversibility, or what the call returns, leaving a few behavioral gaps.

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 short clauses: action, warning, and raw REST mapping. The action is front-loaded, the warning is prominent, and nothing is padded or redundant.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, cost implications, and the underlying endpoint, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The only real omission is any indication of the response shape or how to confirm success, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents deploy_id. The description adds nothing beyond implicitly showing the id in the REST path; the baseline of 3 for a schema-saturated single parameter 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 plus resource ('Start (resume) a dedicated deployment') and the parenthetical disambiguates start from a fresh creation. It does not name the contrasting sibling (deepinfra_stop_deployment) explicitly, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring from the name, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear context for use — resuming a deployment that is currently stopped — and adds a cost warning that is directly relevant to deciding whether to call it. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing at deepinfra_stop_deployment as the inverse, so no explicit alternatives are offered.

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