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

Annotations already declare non-destructive and idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: existing posts survive including scheduled ones, cancelling requires delete_post, out-of-workspace ids return 404, and posts.draft permission is required. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot supply.

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, front-loaded with the action and effect, then side effects, then error and permission, then return value. Every sentence supplies information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 side effects, prerequisite permission, error behavior, and resulting state (status PAUSED, pauseReason USER) even though an output schema exists. Nothing material for a correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's only added parameter-level fact is the 404 for ids outside the workspace. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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 ('Pause an RSS feed') plus the exact effect: it stops being checked until resume_rss_feed. This is unambiguously distinct from resume_rss_feed, check_rss_feed, and delete_rss_feed in the sibling list.

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 counterpart tool (resume_rss_feed) as the way back and routes cleanup of scheduled posts to delete_post. Clear context for when to reach for this tool, though it stops short of stating an explicit 'do not use when you actually want X' exclusion.

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