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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the mute-not-forget semantics, which is a key behavioral trait: the tool does not delete, it only pauses reminders, and it warns about the re-add behavior. This goes beyond the basic schema to clarify side effects.

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?

The description is compact, two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every clause adds value: the 'mutes rather than forgets' clarification and the re-add caveat are essential for correct usage and are stated with zero fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with only 2 parameters fully documented in the schema, and no output schema is needed since the action is a configuration change. The description fully explains the behavioral nuance (mute vs forget) and the re-addition risk, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are well documented in the schema. The description references companyNumber in the schema ('as in track_company_deadlines') but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema's existing explanations. For full coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('stop sending') and a precise resource ('deadline reminders about a company'), clearly distinguishing the tool's core action. It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling 'track_company_deadlines', which is the inverse operation, eliminating ambiguity.

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 description states exactly when to use this tool — to mute reminders — and clarifies that it is not a permanent forget, explaining the nuance that a saved filing could re-add the company on the next scan. It also names the sibling tool that un-mutes, providing explicit guidance on when to use that alternative.

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