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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the risk profile is carried by structured fields. The description does add real value beyond them by disclosing the restart side effect and the plan-pool quota context. However, it says nothing about what happens to running state or data during the restart, whether the three values fully replace the existing allocation, or what occurs if the request exceeds the pool.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the action and its resource scope come first, followed by the operative consequence the caller must plan for. There is no filler, hedging, or restatement of the title.

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 four-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what changes, where the capacity comes from, and that the deployment restarts. The remaining gap is cpuPct semantics and error behavior, which the description leaves entirely to a schema that does not document that field.

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 only 50%: ramMB and storageMB carry their own descriptions, while cpuPct and id are undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — notably it never explains what cpuPct is a percentage of, which is the single most ambiguous required input. With coverage below the 80% threshold, the description should have compensated and does not.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Change") against a precisely enumerated resource set (RAM / CPU / storage) on a deployment, which clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings such as deployments_resources or deployments_get. It stops short of naming any sibling or explicitly contrasting the read vs. write pair, so it is clear but not differentiating.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the write counterpart to inspecting resources, and "drawn from your plan pool" hints at a quota constraint. There is no explicit "use this when / do not use when", no mention of checking current values first, and no stated prerequisites or failure conditions when the requested allocation exceeds the pool.

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