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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that no further messages are sent until resume_campaign, which tells the agent the effect and its reversibility. It does not describe error behavior (e.g., pausing an already-paused or nonexistent campaign), keeping it below a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the consequence. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter, annotation-rich, output-schema-less tool, the description covers action, effect, and reversal path. It omits any error or prerequisite behavior for paused/nonexistent campaigns, which is a minor but real gap.

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% with a single documented UUID parameter, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning and the description adds nothing about it. 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 an active campaign") and implicitly contrasts with delete_campaign/update_campaign by naming resume_campaign as the reversal path, so an agent can distinguish a temporary halt from a permanent removal without opening any 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?

The word "active" scopes when the tool applies, and naming resume_campaign gives the agent a clear counterpart for restarting. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use delete_campaign when the campaign should never resume), so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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