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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: the data and hostname are preserved unchanged, which tells an agent this is a non-destructive state transition rather than a recreate. It omits idempotency_key behavior and any error/state preconditions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the state-preservation qualifier is attached where it is relevant.

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?

The mutation's outcome is well described and annotations carry the safety profile, and no output schema exists to explain. Still, with 0% parameter coverage the description leaves the idempotency_key unexplained and offers no precondition or failure-mode context for a state-changing tool.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameters at all. service_id is inferable from 'a data service', but idempotency_key — a non-obvious parameter whose semantics matter for retries — is completely undocumented in both the description and the schema.

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 (start again) and resource (paused data service), and the phrase 'paused' implicitly distinguishes it from the neighboring restart/stop/pause_service tools. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Start a paused data service again' implies the trigger condition (the service must be paused), which is useful context. However, it never states when to choose resume_service over restart or deploy, nor what happens if the service is not paused.

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