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

Annotations supply destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the operation incurs ongoing GPU charges while the deployment runs, and 'resume' implies the deployment must already exist. It still doesn't say what happens on an already-running or nonexistent deployment id.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action, the cost warning, and the underlying REST endpoint. Front-loaded with the action and the warning immediately follows, with zero filler.

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 mutation with annotations covering the destructive flag and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: action semantics, cost warning, and endpoint. Minor gaps remain around error/idempotency behavior (already running, invalid id), but nothing critical for correct invocation is absent.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents deploy_id fully. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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+resource ('Start (resume) a dedicated deployment') and disambiguates the verb by equating start with resume, which is the key semantic distinction. It does not explicitly name the sibling stop_deployment as the inverse operation, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 context is implied by '(resume)' — the tool applies to an already-existing, presumably stopped deployment — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no reference to the alternative (stop_deployment) or to the case where the deployment is already running.

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