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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the two-phase confirmation protocol, the inline-card review step, the confirmation token requirement on phase 2, and the effect ('the campaign engine stops scheduling actions'). This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the effect, then the two-phase mechanics, then the required-field reminder. Four tight sentences with no filler; every clause informs correct invocation.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what phase 1 returns (confirmation token + preview) and how phase 2 commits. Combined with the annotations and the fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and the schema already labels app_name/campaign_name as preview inputs, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning: it explains why those fields matter (human-readable preview) and clarifies the phase-1/phase-2 role of confirmation_token (omit on phase 1, supply to commit).

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Pause an active campaign'), immediately distinct from siblings like enable_campaign, pause_agent, and update_campaign_settings. The first sentence alone tells an agent exactly what operation this is.

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 clear operational context: it applies to an active campaign, requires a two-phase confirmation flow, and tells the agent to always pass campaign_name + app_name so the preview is readable. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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