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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial context beyond them: the action is irreversible ('can NEVER be resumed') and it has a cascading side effect (launched campaigns are paused so nothing more sends), plus that the reason lands in the audit trail.

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, front-loaded with the irreversible halt and the campaign side effect, then the alternative. Efficient, though wording is slightly colloquial rather than purely informational.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, side effects, and the routing alternative – everything an agent needs to call it safely and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – both 'id' and 'reason' are documented in the schema. The description repeats the audit-trail purpose of 'reason' but adds no syntax, format, or ID-sourcing detail beyond what the schema and list_autopilot_runs reference already provide.

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 action (killing an autopilot run) with vivid scope: 'the run halts wherever it is and can NEVER be resumed.' It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling pause/resume/start autopilot tools.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Use pause_autopilot_run instead when you might want to continue later'), giving a concrete condition that selects between the two tools. Nothing is left to inference.

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