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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not the only source of the risk profile. It still adds substantive context beyond them: resuming "can restart automatic publication to the live marketplace" and the agent should "Confirm with the user before resuming" — exactly the consequence an agent needs before calling a destructive, open-world tool.

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 core action and its effect are front-loaded, and the return shape is stated inline. There is mild redundancy between "synchronization to the channel starts again" and "wants a paused marketplace to sync again," and the parameter notes read as a dense run-on, but no sentence is filler.

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 the action, the side effect on live publication, the confirmation requirement, parameter sourcing, and the return object shape. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: marketplace_id is sourced from list_marketplaces, and project_id is OPTIONAL with an explicit inference rule (single-project customer) plus the project_id_required fallback to list_projects. This is meaning the bare integer schema cannot convey.

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?

"Resume a paused marketplace — synchronization to the channel starts again" gives a specific verb (resume), a specific resource (marketplace), and the effect (channel sync restarts). It cleanly distinguishes itself from the many sibling pause_/resume_ tools for ads, feeds, and items.

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 states when to use it ("when the user wants a paused marketplace to sync again") and adds a real precondition workflow: marketplace_id comes from list_marketplaces, and if project_id_required appears, call list_projects. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or point at pause_marketplace as the inverse, but the scoping to marketplaces implicitly excludes resume_ad/resume_feed.

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