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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly false, destructive false, idempotent true), and the description adds genuinely useful context on top: the hold is a single switch governing all downstream steps, nothing dispatches automatically, and each step is instead drafted for human handling. The gap is that it never says what a caller gets back or what happens if the follow-ups are already on hold.

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?

The scope of the hold is front-loaded, which is good, but the prose is loose and slightly ungrammatical ('as its Hold follow-ups switch does', 'Turning them back on is your person's, in the app'), which costs clarity. Four sentences for a two-parameter mutation is more than needed, and the retry sentence duplicates the schema.

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 no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is held, that nothing sends automatically, and that reversal is a manual in-app action. Only the response behavior and the already-held case are unaddressed.

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 documented in the schema and the description merely restates that reuse guidance, adding nothing. task_id has no schema description at all, and the description only gestures at it with the unexplained term 'a lap's', never clarifying that the parameter is the lap/task UUID. The description therefore fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 ('Puts a lap's automatic follow-ups on hold') and enumerates exactly what is affected: lead follow-ups, a feedback check-in and a review request. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the near-identically named sibling 'hold_follow_ups', so an agent cannot tell which one to pick from the text alone.

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 a real boundary on the reverse direction ('Turning them back on is your person's, in the app') and retry guidance ('Pass the same idempotency_key when retrying'). But it never says when to reach for this tool versus 'hold_follow_ups' or the other lead-journey siblings, so the selection decision is left implicit.

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