acedatacloud_control_deployment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It repeats the schema's confirm=true requirement but does not reveal operational implications such as possible downtime, asynchronous execution, reversibility of stop, or state prerequisites. This is a safety-relevant state-changing operation needing more context.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the operation clearly and tacks on the critical confirm requirement. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy besides the schema-repeated confirm note.

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?

With a fully documented input schema and an output schema available, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks operational guidance about checking current deployment state first, possible side effects, or when to use related lifecycle tools, leaving the overall operational context incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema already explains application_id, action, and confirm. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond repeating the confirm requirement, which is already documented.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Start, stop, or restart a deployment.' It clearly identifies the operation as a power-state control action and distinguishes it from lifecycle siblings like deploy_application and teardown_deployment.

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?

The description implies when to use it (when changing a deployment's running state) but does not explicitly contrast with deploy_application, teardown_deployment, or get_deployment_status. The confirm=true requirement is the only stated constraint; no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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