Keep a machine running

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds the material facts an agent cannot get from them: renewal spends money from the team's balance at every renewal, at the launch price, and it enforces a quote-then-confirm safety protocol with a specific expected amount. That is exactly the added context this dimension rewards.

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?

Three tight sentences, cost and confirmation protocol front-loaded. Minor waste in the opening 'Keep running:' echo of the tool name, and the telegraphic phrasing ('quote first, then confirm=true with expected_renewal_usd') is dense but decodable.

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, and the description covers the billing cycle, price basis, and confirmation flow. It stops short of edge cases such as insufficient balance or what a quote response contains, but nothing essential to making the call is missing.

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 75% and the description reinforces the highest-risk parameters: `confirm` as quote-only vs. execute-after-agreement, `expected_renewal_usd` as the quoted figure, and `hours=null` as the off switch. Only `machine_id` is left implicit, which is reasonable given its self-explanatory name.

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 states a specific resource (the machine), a specific behavior (self-renewal in `hours` increments billed from the team balance at launch price until stopped), which goes well beyond the bare tool name. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from the closely related siblings `extend_machine` and `stop_machine`, which an agent would likely weigh against this tool.

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?

It gives an explicit operational procedure: turning on requires a quote first, then `confirm=true` with `expected_renewal_usd`; turning off uses `hours=null` and needs no confirmation. That is clear when-and-how guidance. The gap is that it never says when to prefer this over `extend_machine` or `stop_machine`.

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