Pause service

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

Goes well beyond annotations, which only declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description discloses the concrete post-state (scales to 0, URL returns 503, database refuses connections), what is preserved (URL, host, port, password, settings, volumes), and the billing effect (no compute charges). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating infrastructure.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then consequences, then the undo path — good ordering with no filler sentences. The single long clause carrying preservation and billing detail is dense but each clause is load-bearing, so only minor trimming is possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the observable result (503 on URL, refused DB connections), the retained resources, and the reversal mechanism. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this two-parameter, idempotent mutation correctly 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% and both parameters (project, service) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a loose hint that service may be a database or app; it adds no identifier-format or selection guidance beyond 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?

States a specific verb (stop/pause, scaling to 0) and resource (Lizard service, app or database), and explicitly contrasts it with deletion: 'without deleting it'. Distinguishable from service_delete and service_resume 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 an explicit trigger ('when the user wants to stop a Lizard service ... without deleting it') and names the inverse operation ('Undo with service_resume'). It does not address nearby siblings that could also stop compute, such as service_sleep_set, so routing is strong but not exhaustive.

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