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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the actual effect: covered days are removed from the adherence denominator and surface as planned_pause in history. Annotations only say non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. It still omits what happens on overlapping pauses or whether an existing pause is replaced.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and its example first, then the downstream consequences. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the semantic effect well but leaves open the relationship to stackwell_pause_supplement, conflict/overlap behavior, and what is returned. Adequate but with clear gaps given the crowded sibling set.

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 75% and the schema already documents startsOn, endsOn (inclusive, absent = open-ended), and reason with an example. The description adds nothing about parameters, and supplementId is undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 for high coverage with no added meaning.

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 ('Create a planned, time-boxed intake pause') with a concrete example, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similarly named sibling stackwell_pause_supplement or from stackwell_remove_supplement_pause, which an agent would need to disambiguate.

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 biotin/blood-draw example implies the intended scenario (temporarily suspending a supplement), which is useful implicit usage guidance. But there is no explicit when-not condition, no mention of the alternative pause tool, and no statement about prerequisites such as the supplement existing or an active plan.

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