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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: per-site outcome granularity, partial-failure semantics (a refused resume doesn't block the others), the reason attached to refusals, and the replay behavior ('same plan id returns the first result'). This is exactly the operational detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive, non-reversible-looking action.

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-loads the triggering condition, then outcomes, then idempotency, then the alternative — a logical order with no filler. The parenthetical about refused resumes is slightly dense but carries necessary partial-failure information, so it earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing return values and does so (paused, resumed, already so, or refused with reason). Combined with the confirm-gating requirement documented in the schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about plan_id's idempotent replay behavior and reinforces that the confirm sentence must come from a user-confirmed plan. It does not add further format or syntax detail, so it is not a 5.

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 makes clear this executes a previously prepared plan_bulk_pause plan and that the effect is pausing or resuming sites, naming the sibling it depends on. The verb (apply/execute) is implied rather than stated outright, so it falls just short of a fully explicit verb+resource statement.

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 timing ('when the user has confirmed a plan_bulk_pause plan'), an explicit exclusion ('Not for deciding which sites'), and the required alternative ('call plan_bulk_pause first'). There is no ambiguity about which tool handles planning versus execution.

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