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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) establish the mutation/safety profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: what is held vs. what keeps running, that nothing is lost, that a running bulk batch stops before its next person and reports the rest as notAttempted, auto-expiry range, replacement semantics, and the auto-set 12-hour misdelivery hold. The only minor gap is no explicit auth/permission detail beyond 'OPERATOR ONLY'.

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?

Long but dense and front-loaded — the install-wide brake concept and OPERATOR ONLY warning lead, followed by effects, expiry, triggers, and the sibling pointer. Nearly every clause carries operational information, though a few parentheticals could be trimmed.

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 high-impact mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what continues, side effects on running batches, expiry behavior, and even the sendingHeld reply flag. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and predict the outcome.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds interaction semantics the schema does not: that omitting both minutes and release selects read mode, that reason is required with minutes, and that release=true ends the hold immediately. This meaningfully supplements the structured fields.

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 exact scope: an install-wide brake that holds ALL sending on EVERY account, with read/release modes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the per-account sibling by naming li_pause_account, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers (before a redeploy or restart, server maintenance, or when a send path looks wrong) and names the alternative (li_pause_account for per-account). It also explains how to invoke the read mode (omit both minutes and release), leaving nothing to inference.

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