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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that paused triggers still count toward schedules_max, which is important quota context, but omits auth requirements, idempotency, permissions, and what happens to in-flight or scheduled fires.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that earns every clause: the action, its temporary nature, and the quota consequence. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given a simple two-parameter tool with fully described inputs and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and an important quota side effect. It could still say more about permissions or side effects, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, including nuanced auth guidance for tenant_key, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline here.

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 and resource: stop a trigger from firing until resumed. The temporary nature cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like host.trigger.resume, host.trigger.remove, and host.trigger.fire.

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?

Implies when to use this tool: for temporarily halting a trigger while preserving it for later resume. The note that it still counts toward schedules_max helps an agent choose between pausing and removing, though no alternative is named explicitly.

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