rp_app_lifecycle

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

The description does disclose the critical behavioral fact that live start/stop is always blocked, which is genuinely useful. But this directly conflicts with the annotations, which declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false for a tool that reportedly never performs the mutating action; the agent is left unsure which signal governs, and nothing is said about what planning output is produced or whether any state changes.

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 tight sentences with the safety constraint front-loaded in emphasis, no filler. The phrasing 'Plan lifecycle URLs' is a bit cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 needn't be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile (albeit inconsistently). Still, for a 2-parameter, zero-coverage schema the description should clarify the dry_run behavior and what a 'plan' result means; that gap is material for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It only gestures at 'start/stop' and 'mock lifecycle', never explaining the dry_run flag, its default of true, or what happens when it is set to false (given live actions are blocked).

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 uses the verbs 'plan' and 'simulate' against 'lifecycle', and the final sentence clarifies that live start/stop is blocked, so the agent gets a rough sense of the operation. However, it never states the resource plainly (app lifecycle) and does not distinguish this from any of the diagnostic/connection siblings, leaving the actual purpose partly inferred from the tool name.

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?

'Plan lifecycle URLs or simulate mock lifecycle' implies a planning/dry-run use case, and 'Live start/stop always blocked' tells the agent not to expect real execution. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the start-vs-stop selection logic.

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