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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose two behavioral traits: the cross-channel blast radius and reversibility. It omits other relevant behavior for a mutation — whether scheduled or in-flight sends are stopped, whether pausing an already-paused campaign errors, and what state the campaign lands in — so it is helpful but incomplete.

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, no filler, with the action and its scope front-loaded and the recovery path second. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter reversible mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the essentials (what it does, that it is reversible, and how to undo it) are covered. It still leaves the agent guessing about failure modes and side effects on in-flight sends, which for a mutation tool is a meaningful remaining gap.

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?

One parameter, 'id', at 0% schema description coverage. The single-param baseline is forgiving and the description gives the object scope (a campaign across channels), letting the agent infer that id is a campaign identifier. It adds no format or validation detail beyond that.

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 (pause) plus resource (campaign) and qualifies scope as 'across every channel,' which implicitly separates it from the sibling pause_channel. An agent can pick between pause_campaign, pause_channel, and archive_campaign without opening any 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?

It gives the reverse operation explicitly ('call launch_campaign to resume'), which is genuinely useful routing information, but it never states when to prefer this over pause_channel or resume_channel, or what preconditions must hold (e.g., campaign must be running). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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