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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the two-phase confirmation workflow, that the first call returns a token and preview, that the user reviews an inline card, and that existing leads remain after pausing. This meaningfully clarifies the mutation flow and impact, which the destructive and non-idempotent hints alone do not convey.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the key side effect, the two-phase flow, and the parameter guidance in a compact sequence. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or 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 multi-step mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call flow, return behavior for phase one, and required parameter usage. It gives enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly across both phases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why agent_name and app_name should always be included for a human-readable preview, and by tying confirmation_token to the second phase, which is more than the schema descriptions provide.

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 and resource: pause an active agent. It also clarifies the effect by saying it stops discovering new leads while existing leads remain, which distinguishes it from enable_agent and pause_campaign implicitly. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool.

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 description gives some procedural guidance for using the tool, such as including agent_name and app_name and using the two-phase confirmation flow. But it does not state when to choose pause_agent over alternative tools like enable_agent or pause_campaign, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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