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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description meaningfully narrows the blast radius: no new drafts or cold emails, but replies and in-flight batches are untouched. That is valuable scope context beyond the annotations, though reversibility/re-enable behavior is not restated.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence pair: the core action first, then the clarifying scope limits. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 two-param toggle with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover action, scope, and side-effect boundaries well. Missing only the sibling-routing detail (set_sending vs resume_sending) that would make it fully complete.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema (enabled semantics, workspaceId discovery via get_status). The description adds only the implicit 'one site' scope, 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 specific verbs (stops/restarts) and the resource (new outreach for one site), covering both directions of the boolean. It is clear, but it does not address the sibling resume_sending, which appears to overlap, so an agent cannot fully tell them apart from the description alone.

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 context for what turning it off means and what it explicitly does not affect (replies in flight, batches already being delivered). That is strong boundary-setting, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-resume_sending routing guidance.

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