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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that existing leads are preserved (scoping the destructiveHint), describes the confirmation-token/preview two-phase safety mechanism, and explains what the first call actually returns. The MCP-specific override of the two-phase flow is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot 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?

Four sentences, purpose front-loaded, each covering a distinct concern (effect, side effects, two-phase mechanics, MCP behavior). The two-phase sentence is dense but no sentence is 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?

With no output schema and no annotations covering the confirm flow, the description carries the burden well: it explains both phases, what is preserved, and the MCP shortcut. It stops short of saying whether pausing is reversible or which sibling re-enables the agent.

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, but the description adds real meaning: agent_name and app_name are required for a human-readable preview, and confirmation_token is phase-2-only. That tells the agent why two required params exist rather than merely restating the 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 verb+resource ('Pause an active agent') plus the immediate effect ('stops discovering new leads'), which cleanly separates it from the similarly named pause_campaign sibling. The scope note that existing leads remain prevents misreading the pause as a delete.

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?

Gives explicit call sequencing: phase-1 without confirmation_token, then a phase-2 call with the token after user confirmation. It also resolves the runtime ambiguity directly ('Over MCP: call this tool once, without confirmation_token'). It does not name adjacent alternatives such as pause_campaign or enable_agent, so it falls just short of 5.

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