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

Annotations only state it is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds substantial context beyond that — it stops answering new comments immediately, preserves leads/statistics/keywords/messages, is fully reversible with campaigns_resume, and is always allowed regardless of plan. This goes well past the annotation bar.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and scoping, and each sentence contributes (preservation, reversibility, plan independence, misuse routing). It is slightly verbose with some restatement of the 'stop/remove/get rid of' framing, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior, side effects, reversibility, permission model, and sibling routing — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% with a single documented campaignId, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no format or syntax details about the id, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Switches one campaign off') and immediately distinguishes it from siblings by naming campaigns_resume as the inverse and noting no delete tool exists. An agent can identify what this does without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it ('when someone asks to stop, remove or get rid of a campaign') and names the alternative (campaigns_resume for reversal). It also pre-empts the misuse case by explaining no deletion tool exists, so the agent knows pausing is the correct substitute.

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