Control a standalone run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: it does not clarify that 'stop' terminates the run, what state survives a pause, or any prerequisite (e.g., an attached instance), leaving the behavioral burden entirely on the annotations.

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 efficient sentence with the action list front-loaded and no wasted words. Slightly more context could be added without bloat, but the structure is clean.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive multi-verb control tool with an optional instance target, the description omits lifecycle detail (what each action does to the instance) and prerequisites. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, with the action enum and instance parameter well documented ('sa1', may be omitted while only one exists). The description merely enumerates the same actions the enum already lists, adding no syntax or semantic value, so baseline 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 clear verb ('control') and resource (a standalone instance's simulation) and enumerates the four actions aligned with the enum. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like cm_standalone_launch or cm_standalone_close, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which control entry point to use.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. The agent is not told how this differs from cm_standalone_launch, cm_standalone_close, or cm_start_sim/cm_stop_sim, all of which plausibly overlap.

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