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

Goes well beyond the annotations by bounding the blast radius: the trigger stops firing, but queued and in-flight events finish, and the action is recorded on the founder's Logs. That tempers the alarming destructiveHint=true with the actual semantics and confirms the pause is reversible via resume_relay, which is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the action and its effect, with zero filler. The trailing fragment "On the founder's Logs." is slightly telegraphic but still earns its place by flagging auditability.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, effect on queued versus new events, reversibility, and audit trail. Nothing material is left to inference.

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% and both parameters (name, reason) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline applies. The description only implies the target relay is scoped to Development and adds no detail about name format or how reason surfaces, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Pauses one relay") plus scope ("in Development") and the precise effect on the trigger, which distinguishes it from siblings like put_relay, dev_delete_relay, and resume_relay without opening any schema.

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?

Names the counterpart explicitly ("resume_relay lifts it") and orients the agent with "the same pause the dashboard's own switch makes", giving a clear model of the operation. It stops short of stating when to prefer pause_relay over mutating a relay via put_relay, so it is clear context without full alternatives coverage.

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