Halt rollout

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds two behaviors not in the structured data: the effect boundary (existing installs keep the release) and the silent dry-run fallback on production without confirm_production. It does not describe review/commit side effects, which is a minor residual gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the effect statement is front-loaded before the production caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the two things that could cause a wrong call: the scope of the halt and the production confirmation/dry-run behavior; the remaining parameters are fully documented in the schema. It could say more about managed-publishing/review consequences, but nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds cross-parameter meaning by tying confirm_production to the production track specifically, clarifying which value of `track` triggers the confirmation requirement rather than restating the schema's generic wording.

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 specific verb and resource ("Halts a staged rollout") and immediately scopes the effect: no new users receive the release while existing installs keep it. That scoping also implicitly distinguishes halt from a rollback or unpublish, so an agent can tell it apart from resume_rollout/update_rollout without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition for the production case: confirm_production: true is required, otherwise the call degrades to a dry run. That is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. resume_rollout to undo the halt, update_rollout for partial changes), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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