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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value by delineating blast radius: replies to existing conversations are untouched and an in-flight batch is not cancelled. That is exactly the non-obvious scope information an agent needs. It stops short of saying whether the toggle is reversible/how quickly it takes effect.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the important exclusions. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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-parameter toggle with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the key side-effect boundaries. Minor gap: it doesn't say what a successful call returns or whether the change is immediate.

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% — both workspaceId and enabled carry descriptions, including a routing hint to get_status. The description adds only the 'one site' scoping notion, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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 pair (stops/restarts) plus the resource (new outreach for one site), so the agent knows exactly what changes. It does not acknowledge the sibling tool resume_sending, leaving the on/off split between two tools ambiguous.

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 description clearly frames the effect of 'off', which implies when an agent would call it, but it never states when to prefer this tool over resume_sending or how the two relate. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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