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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses that mid-response respondents are saved while only new entries close, that the share link shows a survey-closed page, that a concurrency slot is freed, that a never-published survey is refused, that double-pausing is idempotent success with wasAlreadyStopped, and that the paused state is re-read server-side before success. That is exactly the behavioral depth a high-consequence mutation needs, and it is consistent with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the consent warning, and nearly every sentence carries non-redundant information (reversibility, guards, mid-response behavior). It is dense and heavily ALL-CAPS-emphatic, which costs a little readability, but there is essentially no 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, high-consequence mutation with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies everything an agent needs: side effects, reversibility path, consent protocol, guard conditions, and idempotency. Nothing material is left to inference.

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% and both params are described there in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by tying confirm:true to a consent precondition and clarifying that the no-confirm path is a preview reading live state, response counts, and concurrency slots, which frames the parameter as a workflow gate rather than a bare boolean.

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 and pins the exact scope: 'a RUNNING survey stops accepting NEW responses.' The reversibility contrast with publish_survey and the distinction from archive_survey (nothing deleted, PublicationID unchanged) lets an agent separate this from its siblings without opening a 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?

Prescribes an explicit call sequence: call WITHOUT confirm first for a zero-side-effect preview, show the user what pausing means, then call with confirm:true only after explicit consent. It also names the sibling that reverses the action (publish_survey), covering both when to use and what restores state.

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