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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the key behavioral effect: moving to draft stops new enrolments and applies immediately. It also clarifies that reactivation is possible via activate_sequence. It does not fully specify what happens to already-enrolled leads or in-flight sends.

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 definition is front-loaded with the operation and effect, then adds useful contrast with activate_sequence. It is slightly verbose with rhetorical phrasing, but every sentence carries some relevant signal.

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 mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main effect, immediacy, and reactivation path. It leaves some edge-case behavior unclear, such as treatment of existing enrollments, but gives enough to call the tool 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 description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. With only 50% schema description coverage and no description of sequenceId in the schema, the description does not compensate for the undocumented required parameter or explain the project override.

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 states a specific verb and resource: move a sequence to draft. It also states the effect, stopping new enrolments, and explicitly contrasts with activate_sequence, so the agent can distinguish this from its key sibling.

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 names activate_sequence as the alternative for starting a sequence again, giving clear routing for the inverse operation. It implies when to pause by emphasizing that stopping mail is immediate, but it does not explicitly state when-not to use this tool or mention other nearby siblings such as update_sequence.

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