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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation; the description adds real substance on top — configuration is preserved, the change is reversible via deploy_agent, and the returned record carries status `paused`. It stops short of stating permissions or the effect on in-flight conversations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the user-visible effect, then the reversal path, then the return shape. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

Covers purpose, state preservation, reversal, and even the return payload in the absence of an output schema, which is enough for a one-parameter toggle. Only authorization requirements are unaddressed, a minor omission for this scope.

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% for the single agentId parameter, which already documents the string and its source (list_agents). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the 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 and resource ('Stop a deployed AI agent from answering customers') plus the operative consequence that teammates take over the replies. It also names the inverse operation (deploy_agent), so an agent can distinguish pause from deploy/resume without opening sibling 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?

Clearly explains the situation that calls for this tool (handing customer replies back to teammates) and points to deploy_agent as the way to undo it. There is no explicit 'when not to use' clause, but the use case is unambiguous.

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