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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and delivers two useful facts: closing irreversibly refunds unused credits (a destructive side effect), and a token is required. It does not say whether pausing/resuming is reversible or what happens to already-refunded credits.

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?

Two short sentences plus a parenthetical, with the action enumerated first and the consequence of the riskiest branch immediately after. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the action set, the irreversible refund consequence, and the auth requirement. Minor gaps remain around token type/location and whether paused campaigns resume with the same credits, but nothing essential is missing.

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%: package_name is documented in the schema and status is a self-describing enum. The description's pause/resume/close wording loosely maps onto the active/paused/closed values but adds no format or identity detail for package_name, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 set (pause, resume, close) against a specific resource (a campaign), which is enough to distinguish it from start_campaign among the siblings. It stops short of naming the sibling it complements, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

The three supported transitions are listed, so an agent can infer which call to make for each desired state, but there is no guidance on prerequisites, when closing is appropriate versus pausing, or when to use this instead of start_campaign.

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