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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the change propagates to every account the automation runs on, an email notification is sent to the owner, and per-account partial failures are surfaced in a 'failed' field. That side-effect and partial-success disclosure is exactly the context annotations cannot carry, and nothing contradicts the hints.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: action, scope, safety reassurance, inverse sibling, and outcome reporting, with the action and scope front-loaded. No redundant or filler wording.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description still covers the blast radius (all accounts), reversibility (nothing deleted, resume available), the user-visible side effect (owner email), and how to detect partial failure ('failed'). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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 100% and the single parameter's schema text already tells the agent to obtain automation_id from sprkly_list_automations. The description adds no format, constraint, or sourcing detail beyond that, 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 an automation from replying') plus the scope ('on every account it runs on'), then explicitly disambiguates from destructive siblings with 'Nothing is deleted.' An agent can distinguish this from sprkly_archive_automation and sprkly_delete_scheduled_post without opening any 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?

Names the inverse operation (sprkly_resume_automation) and clarifies that no deletion occurs, which implicitly steers an agent away from archive/delete when it only wants a temporary stop. It does not explicitly state the condition under which pausing is preferred over archiving, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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