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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description repeating "idempotent" earns no credit. It does add genuinely new behavioral context: the schedule-miss consequence after resume and the underlying REST endpoint, which helps an agent reason about side effects.

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 short sentences with the core effect front-loaded, followed by the most decision-relevant caveat and the endpoint in parentheses. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent mutation with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers effect and consequence adequately. It could note whether in-flight runs are terminated, but annotations and schema already carry the safety profile.

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 (job_id format, management_token fallback) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about job_id or the token beyond what the schema already states.

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?

"Stop triggering" is a specific verb-plus-effect phrase and the title names the resource, so an agent can tell this pauses a job rather than deleting it. It stops short of naming the resume_job sibling, leaving the reversibility contrast implicit.

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?

The clause about schedule points not being made up later gives real context for deciding whether pausing is acceptable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of resume_job or delete_job as alternatives for the same need.

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