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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: the agent stops firing until resumed, and the tool is for active agents. It could further disclose edge cases (e.g., already paused agents), but the added behavior description earns credit beyond the annotations.

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 description is two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every piece of information (pause, stops firing, resume, agentId source) earns its place. No fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, effect, and how to obtain the required ID. It doesn't describe error conditions (e.g., invalid or already-paused agents), but these are not critical for a standard pause operation and the output schema likely covers result details.

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% as the single parameter agentId is fully described in the schema, including its format and source. The description's note to 'Get agentId from list_agents' adds little beyond the schema, which already mentions list_agents. 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Pause an active scheduled agent' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like resume_agent and pause_session_task by specifying 'scheduled agent' and the behavior 'stops firing until resumed.'

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 gives clear context (use on active scheduled agents) and even tells where to get the agentId from list_agents. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'until resumed' implicitly points to resume_agent as the complementary operation.

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