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

Annotations cover non-destructive, non-read-only, idempotent. The description adds the causal context that alerts were paused due to repeated failures and the warning to fix the endpoint first. It does not state whether resuming takes effect immediately or resets failure counters, but the annotations carry most of the safety profile.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, parenthetical gives the precondition and the helper tool. 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?

Rich enough for a zero-param state toggle: action, cause, precondition, and verifying sibling. Missing only postconditions (e.g., alerts become active, future failures re-pause), which is a minor gap without an output schema.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a single global/per-account action with no target parameter, matching the empty schema.

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?

Specific verb (Turn back on) plus resource (webhook alerts) and the exact precondition (Relvato paused them for repeated failed deliveries). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the pause cause and pointing to send_test_alert, so an agent can tell it apart from the many monitoring siblings.

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?

State clearly implies when to use it: only after they were paused, and only after fixing the endpoint. It names send_test_alert as the prerequisite check, giving an explicit alternative/verification path rather than leaving sequencing to inference.

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