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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the partial-effect behavior ('Other channels keep going') and the 'running campaign' precondition, but is silent on permissions/authorization, reversibility, and error behavior for an invalid channel or non-running campaign.

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, scope stated first, behavior second, with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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 2-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and side-effect behavior but omits the meaning of 'id', any permission requirements, and failure/reversibility semantics. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It restates the 'channel' enum values (already fully enumerated in the schema) but says nothing about what 'id' identifies (campaign id? channel id?), leaving the most important parameter undocumented in both places.

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 (pause) and resource (a single channel on a campaign), and the parenthetical lists the exact channel values. The phrase 'a single channel' implicitly separates it from the whole-campaign sibling pause_campaign, though that sibling is never named.

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 clause 'on a running campaign' gives a precondition for use, which is useful. However, it never states when to prefer this over pause_campaign or resume_channel, nor what to do if the channel is already paused, so the guidance is only implied.

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