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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add meaningful behavioral content: the mutation is scoped to one channel, the campaign must be running, and sibling channels are unaffected. But it does not disclose reversibility (resume_channel exists as a sibling but is not referenced), behavior on an already-paused channel, or what happens if the campaign is not running.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The action and scope appear immediately, the channel values are compactly listed, and the second sentence earns its place by conveying the key differentiating behavior.

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 low-complexity tool with a simple two-parameter schema and no output schema expected, the description covers the core scenario adequately. However, the ambiguous referent of 'id', the unstated enforcement of the 'running campaign' precondition, and edge-case behavior (already-paused channel, invalid channel for the campaign) are notable gaps given there are no annotations to fall back on.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It confirms the channel enum values (redundant with the schema) and implies that 'id' refers to the campaign via 'on a running campaign.' However, the id parameter is never explicitly defined as the campaign id, and no format or example is given, leaving the mapping to inference.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Pause') with a concrete resource ('a single channel ... on a running campaign') and enumerates the exact channel values. The sentence 'Other channels keep going' cleanly differentiates it from the sibling pause_campaign, which implies a whole-campaign pause.

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 phrase 'on a running campaign' provides useful context about when the tool applies, and 'Other channels keep going' hints at the contrast with pausing the entire campaign. However, it never explicitly names the alternative (pause_campaign), nor states exclusions such as not using it on non-running campaigns or already-paused channels.

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