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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: prompts land paused, do not alter the plan or start scans, and only count toward the plan once activated in Kliqo. Also discloses the required roles. The destructiveHint=true annotation is not contradicted, but the description could have been clearer about why this is flagged destructive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the paused state, then the when-to-use and permission gating. Dense but every sentence carries information; no 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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the write/safety profile, so the description only needs context – which it supplies (paused semantics, plan effect, roles, confirmation step). Preconditions for failure (e.g., exceeding 10 prompts) are implicit in the schema rather than explained.

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 schema already documents topic, project and the prompts array with length limits. The description only reinforces 'buyer questions'/'list', adding no format or ordering detail beyond 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 and object ('Add buyer questions to the project's prompt library') plus a key qualifier ('paused'). No sibling tool does anything similar, so the resource is unambiguous.

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 a clear trigger ('Use when the member wants Kliqo to track new questions') and a procedural prerequisite ('Confirm the list with the member first'), plus role gating. No explicit exclusions or named alternative, so it stays 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.