Push the deadline back

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

Annotations already signal mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful context: it only extends a hard deadline, never removes it, and returns a JSON structure with next_tool and next_args for chaining—valuable behavior not in annotations.

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 pack the core action, usage trigger, a key behavioral constraint, and return format. Everything earns its place, and the primary action is front-loaded.

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 format details are handled. However, the optional idle_minutes parameter is entirely unexplained, and there is no mention of side effects beyond extending the deadline. Adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for an agent that needs to understand all parameters.

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 only 33% (only additional_minutes has a description). The description reinforces what additional_minutes does but adds no meaning for instance_id or the optional idle_minutes, leaving a significant coverage gap for a low-coverage 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 action (moves), the exact target (hard teardown deadline), and a defining constraint (never removes the deadline entirely). This clearly differentiates it from destructive sibling tools like destroy_instance and destroy_all.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when a render needs longer than planned', giving a clear trigger condition. It does not name alternative tools or provide when-not guidance, but the constraint 'never removes the deadline entirely' implies it is not for canceling teardown.

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