bunny_mc_app_lifecycle

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral details like 'rolling restart of all pods' and 'stops all running instances', which go beyond the annotations by specifying the exact operational effect. However, it does not disclose timing (e.g., async vs sync), potential errors, or prerequisites, which would enrich transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently lists the three actions with their meanings. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, and every clause contributes to understanding.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the main usage context well. However, it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., the app must already exist), the nature of the response (even without an output schema, an agent might benefit from knowing if a status object is returned), or whether operations are synchronous. These gaps make it adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (id: 'Application ID', action: 'Lifecycle action: deploy, undeploy, or restart'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds further meaning by explaining what each action actually does (e.g., deploy initiates across regions). This extra context helps an agent choose the correct action without opening 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: controlling the lifecycle of a Magic Container application. It enumerates the specific actions (deploy, undeploy, restart) and their effects, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bunny_get_mc_app (read-only) and bunny_manage_mc_app (likely broader management). The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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 explains what each action does (e.g., 'deploy starts the application across configured regions'), giving context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as 'for other management operations use bunny_manage_mc_app'. The usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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