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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by spelling out concrete consequences: comments received while paused are permanently unanswered, in-flight followers still complete their flow, the automation no longer counts toward the plan limit, and the keyword remains attached to the post. This is exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs before mutating state.

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?

The core action and its inverse lead, then three short clauses each deliver a distinct behavioral fact. No filler sentences and no repetition 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?

An output schema and the destructiveHint annotation are already present, and the description covers the remaining decision-relevant unknowns (irreversible comment loss, plan-limit accounting, keyword retention, partial-flow behavior). Nothing material is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single required automation_id, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the id (format, source), which is acceptable at this coverage level but not value-adding.

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 ('Stop an automation from answering new comments') and immediately names the counterpart 'activate_automation' as the inverse, letting an agent separate the two without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly points to activate_automation as the resume path and implies 'use this to halt replies,' so the when-to-use is clear. It does not distinguish pausing from delete_automation or update_automation, which are the other plausible siblings an agent might consider.

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