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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context beyond these: pausing stops the automation from running and 'stops spending leads', which is a meaningful incidental effect. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every clause contributes to understanding: the mechanism (active flag), the consequence (stops spending leads), and the alternative (delete_automation). No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and solid annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it vs an alternative, and the practical effect. No important gaps remain.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both id and active. The description reinforces the active mapping (false to pause, true to resume) and adds a slight nuance about stopping lead spending, but does not substantially enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verbs 'pause' and 'resume' with the resource 'automation', and explicitly maps them to the active field values. It distinguishes from sibling delete_automation by noting when to use which, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use pause/resume vs delete: 'Pausing is the safe way to stop an automation you might want back — use delete_automation only when the user wants it gone for good.' This provides direct alternatives and clear usage context.

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