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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavior ('Nothing is lost: resuming shifts every pending step by the length of the pause') and the required auth scope ('manage_campaigns'). This is exactly the extra context an agent needs to reason about side effects and permissions.

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 key behavioral guarantee, then the auth requirement. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the important extras (pending-step behavior, scope). Minor gap: it doesn't mention what happens if the campaign isn't currently running.

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 both parameters, including the idempotency key semantics, are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Freeze a running campaign'), which clearly identifies the operation among siblings like resume_campaign and launch_campaign. It doesn't explicitly name the alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'a running campaign' implies the precondition for use, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance. It doesn't contrast with stop_enrollment or resume_campaign, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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