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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses what is preserved ('Accepted work and settlement receipts survive') and that revocation is not silently reversible. That is genuine added context about blast radius and irreversibility, though the stale-revision failure mode and what happens to in-flight admissions are not spelled out.

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, each earning its place: the action, the blast radius, and the irreversibility. The most important fact (what is stopped) is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the semantic consequences are well covered. However, for a destructive, revision-guarded mutation with zero schema documentation, the absence of guidance on expected_revision and request_key leaves a real gap.

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 and mostly does not. 'Using the current schedule revision' obliquely gestures at expected_revision, but it never explains how to obtain that revision, nor does it say anything about schedule_id, workspace_id, or the request_key idempotency token.

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 with scope: 'Stop future schedule admissions using the current schedule revision.' The line 'Revoked schedules cannot be silently resumed' implicitly distinguishes it from pause_recurring_schedule, but the sibling is never named, so the differentiation has to be inferred.

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 rather than stated: the tool ends future admissions, and the note about non-resumption hints at when to prefer this over a resumable pause. There is no explicit 'use X when Y' routing and no statement of prerequisites, so the agent must infer the choice between revoke and pause.

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