Resume service

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the service returns with the same image, URL, host, port, password, settings and data, and that a redundant resume does nothing. It stops short of noting permissions or timing/downtime behavior.

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, the usage condition is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs recovery guarantees and idempotency semantics with no filler.

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 two-param, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the trigger, the post-resume state preservation, and the no-op case. It could mention expected latency or whether the caller must poll status, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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% ('Project name, slug, or ID' and 'App or database name or ID'), so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('start... again') and resource ('a paused Lizard service (app or database)'), and the title/name pairing makes the inverse of service_pause unambiguous. An agent can distinguish it from service_pause, project_resume and workspace_resume by the 'service (app or database)' scoping.

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 states the trigger condition clearly ('when the user wants to start a paused ... service again') and warns that resuming something already running is a no-op. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (project_resume, workspace_resume, service_pause), so the guidance is clear but not fully routed.

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