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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the call saves a plan and changes nothing in the account, and it describes exactly what the result reports (which sites would change, which are already in the target state, which cannot be changed and why). That correctly resolves the apparent tension between readOnlyHint=false and 'changes nothing', clarifying that the only write is the plan object itself. It stops short of noting whether plans expire or must be applied immediately via apply_bulk_pause.

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?

Three dense sentences: purpose and scope first, then the return contract, then the exclusions. Every clause carries information an agent needs, and the routing information is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the outcome categories and the plan id. Combined with a fully documented six-parameter schema including the nested answers object, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 targeting semantics by framing group / sites / all as alternative selection modes and clarifying that 'every site' means every site the user can change. The answers/plan_id decision-resolution flow is left entirely to the schema.

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 or resume several sites at once') plus the accepted scopes: a group, a list, or every site. It names the sibling tools it is not (set_monitor_paused, draft_maintenance) with the condition that selects them, so the agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use with a concrete scenario ('during a migration or a move to a new host') and explicit when-not-to-use, naming both alternatives and their distinguishing conditions. 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.