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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description goes well beyond them by disclosing exactly what is cleared (next scheduled wake, new drafts) and, crucially, what is NOT affected (already-scheduled approved posts). That negative-space disclosure is the kind of side-effect detail annotations cannot express.

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 primary effect, then the exception, then the reversal path. No filler; every clause (including the negative constraint) changes how an agent should act.

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?

Single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, and the description still covers effects, non-effects, the remediation sibling, and the undo path. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 0% for the single influencerId parameter, so the description would ideally clarify which identifier is expected. It never mentions the parameter; the schema's uuid format/pattern carries the typing, and the name is self-evident, but the description adds no semantics beyond it.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Turn an influencer's posting agent OFF'), with an explicit enumeration of the concrete effects: disables the agent, clears the next scheduled wake, stops new drafts. It also distinguishes this from siblings by stating the boundary against decide_influencer_drafts and the inverse operation update_influencer_agent enabled=true.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (pause the posting agent) and when-not: scheduled approved posts are not cancelled, so the agent is routed to decide_influencer_drafts if the user wants those pulled. It also names the counter-tool for resuming, so both directions of the lifecycle are covered.

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