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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to say what gets destroyed and how resume works. It only hints at reversibility with "(or resume)" and never explains that omitting `paused` defaults to pausing, nor what happens to already-logged intake or schedule entries during a pause.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is a symptom of thin content rather than deliberate tightness.

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 destructive mutation with three parameters, no output schema, and two closely-named sibling pause tools, the definition omits the disambiguation, the reason field's purpose, and any post-call effect. An agent would have to guess between the three pause variants.

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 33%: only `paused` is documented, and weakly ("Default true"). The `reason` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and `supplementId` format/validation is unstated, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Pause (or resume) a supplement" gives a clear verb and resource, but the tool competes with siblings stackwell_set_supplement_pause and stackwell_remove_supplement_pause, and the description does nothing to differentiate itself from them. An agent cannot tell from this text why three overlapping pause tools exist.

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 example "during a fast or a wash-out phase" gives a scenario but not a decision rule: there is no statement of when to use this versus set_supplement_pause or remove_supplement_pause, and no prerequisites or preconditions are mentioned.

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