emergency

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

The description discloses that operations are destructive and require confirmation ('Safety: confirm for destructive ops'), which adds behavioral context beyond the openWorldHint annotation. However, it does not detail potential side effects, the return format, or what happens on failure, leaving gaps given the open-world hint.

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 extremely concise: a single introductory sentence followed by a compact list of action signatures and a safety note. Every part serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given 10 parameters (all described in schema) and an output schema existing, the description covers the main actions and safety. However, it omits explanatory context about the grouping rationale or cross-tool relationships, which would help an agent decide when to invoke this tool over siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to compensate heavily. However, it adds value by showing the action signatures (e.g., 'stop_all(confirm)') and indicating which parameters are relevant per action, clarifying usage beyond the schema's general descriptions.

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 lists the three actions (stop_all, redeploy_project, restart_project) and states 'Emergency and bulk operations', providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deployment' or 'application', which could also handle similar actions individually.

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 says 'Emergency and bulk operations' but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or suggest alternatives for non-emergency or single-item operations.

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