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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds what those hints cannot: remove is permanent but nothing is deleted from the system, all prior changes stay in the change log with undo, and resuming a never-approved rule returns its approval link instead of activating it. That last detail is a genuine behavioral surprise the agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then prerequisites, then the alternative. Dense but nearly every clause carries new information; the multi-clause sentence about resume and approval links is a little hard to parse on first read.

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 state-change tool with an output schema present, the description covers when to call, confirmation gating, prerequisites, per-command effects, reversibility, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by spelling out the effect of each enum value (pause halts until resumed, resume reactivates, remove is final) rather than repeating the bare enum. It does not add id format or length details beyond what the schema already covers.

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 specific verbs and the exact resource: pause, resume or remove one automation. It also draws a sharp boundary against the sibling that changes rule behavior (propose_automation with replaces), so the agent can route without opening a 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?

Explicit trigger ('Use when the customer asks to pause, resume or remove one automation, after they confirmed'), explicit prerequisite ('Needs the id from list_automations'), and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named ('Not for changing what a rule does (use propose_automation with replaces)').

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