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

Goes beyond annotations by explaining the operational effect: no new calls start and in-progress calls finish. This is useful context for a mutation tool whose annotations only say destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. It does not cover authorization needs or behavior when the campaign is not RUNNING.

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 compact sentences with the precondition and effect front-loaded, followed by a useful sibling reference. Every sentence carries information.

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 simple pause mutation, the description, annotations, and schema together give enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around error behavior if the campaign is not RUNNING and whether authentication or additional state checks are required.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already fully documents campaign_id, including how to obtain it. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a RUNNING voice campaign') and adds a precise precondition ('RUNNING'). It also differentiates from the sibling resume_voice_campaign by naming it as the continuation action.

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?

Clearly indicates the campaign must be RUNNING and points to resume_voice_campaign for continuing it. It lacks explicit guidance about when not to use it versus cancel_voice_campaign or delete_voice_campaign, but the context is clear.

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