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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two concrete behavioral facts beyond that: the prerequisite state (a kill switch set by live_kill) and the authentication requirement ('Requires the organization API key'), which the annotations do not convey.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the auth prerequisite. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema operation, the description covers purpose, prerequisite state, and auth needs, which is nearly everything required to invoke it. It could say slightly more about why the operation is flagged destructive (e.g. the agent immediately resumes acting), but nothing critical 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 100% and the single parameter (stream_id, default '*') is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or wildcard semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Lift a kill switch', 'resume an agent') and explicitly ties it to the sibling that creates the state it undoes (live_kill). An agent can distinguish this from live_kill and live_status without opening any schema.

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?

It gives clear context for when this tool applies: only to lift a kill switch that was previously set with live_kill, which implicitly routes the agent to the correct sibling. It does not state any when-not conditions or alternative recovery paths, but the routing signal is strong.

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