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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's repeated idempotency advice adds little. What it does add beyond the structured data is genuinely valuable: "No step goes out on its own; each is drafted for a person" defines what "hold" actually means in effect, and the in-app-only reversal path tells the agent there is no programmatic undo. That is meaningful behavioral context for a mutation.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. "as its Hold follow-ups switch does" is slightly indirect but efficiently maps the API action onto a UI concept the reader may know. Nothing is padded.

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 mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the definition covers scope of effect, reversal, and retry behavior. The remaining hole is the identity of task_id and its relationship to "a lap," which is exactly the information an agent needs before calling.

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 50%: idempotency_key is fully described in the schema while task_id has no description at all. The description never connects the domain term "lap" to the task_id parameter, so the agent must guess that the lap identifier is what goes in task_id. The one sentence about idempotency_key merely restates what the schema already says.

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 ("Puts a lap's automatic follow-ups on hold") and enumerates the concrete effects: lead follow-ups, feedback check-in, review request. It is clear what is affected, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely-named sibling hold_lead_follow_ups, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone whether this is the broad or narrow hold.

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?

"Turning them back on is your person's, in the app" usefully signals there is no release counterpart here and the agent should not look for one. However, with hold_lead_follow_ups in the sibling list, the definition gives no rule for choosing between the two — a real ambiguity given the description itself claims to cover lead follow-ups.

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