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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: connections stop, running-instance cost stops, and the volume and certificate are retained. Annotations carry the safety/idempotency profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), and the description supplies the state-retention and cost consequences. It does not, however, address the mild tension between 'reversible' and destructiveHint=true, nor any auth requirements.

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, front-loaded with the action, then behavior, then the alternative comparison. No filler; each sentence adds routing or behavioral information.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete on behavior and sibling routing. The one gap is parameter documentation, which is left entirely to an undocumented schema.

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?

Two parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about either service_id or idempotency_key. An agent gets no hint that an idempotency key exists or what it accomplishes, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Pause a data service') and immediately scopes it against siblings: resume_service is 'the exact reverse' and delete_service is the non-reversible alternative. An agent can distinguish it from delete_service, stop, and resume_service without opening any 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 frames the choice: this is 'the reversible way to put a service down,' while delete_service is not and 'starts a seven-day clock on the data.' Both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-use (with the selecting condition) are stated.

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