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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: accepted work and settlement receipts survive the pause, and a revoked schedule cannot be silently resumed — real state-transition consequences an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the preservation guarantee, then the state constraint. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the preservation guarantee covers the main destructive-effect concern. Still missing for a destructive, revision-guarded mutation: what a revision conflict does, what request_key guarantees, and what state the schedule lands in after pausing.

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 0% across four required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. 'Using the current schedule revision' weakly gestures at expected_revision's optimistic-concurrency meaning, but request_key (presumably an idempotency key), workspace_id, and schedule_id are entirely unexplained, and revision-mismatch behavior is never described.

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: stop future schedule admissions, scoped to the current schedule revision. It also implicitly distinguishes the operation from a permanent revocation via 'revoked schedules cannot be silently resumed', though it never names activate_recurring_schedule or revoke_recurring_schedule as siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'stop' and the phrase 'using the current schedule revision', which tells an agent a fresh revision is required. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-revoke guidance, no statement that activate_recurring_schedule is the inverse, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or schedule state.

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