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

Beyond the destructive annotation, it discloses the real-world consequence ('calls go to real people'), the archived-campaign refusal, and the specific auto-pause behavior when the AI-minutes cap is active. These are material behavioral details an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by preconditions and edge behavior. Every sentence carries useful 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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, real-world effect, refusal condition, and cap-related re-pause behavior. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and understand the main risks.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already says campaign_id is 'as returned by list_voice_campaigns'. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, which is acceptable at baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Resume a PAUSED voice campaign') and scopes it to paused campaigns, which is enough to distinguish it from pause_voice_campaign and cancel_voice_campaign. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear preconditions: the campaign must be PAUSED, and it is refused when archived. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings such as pause_voice_campaign or launch_voice_campaign, but the state-gating makes the correct usage context obvious.

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