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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: queued texts are taken back, nobody else is texted until resumed, already-sent texts stay sent, and request_campaign_launch is the resume path. It does not cover permissions or what happens when pausing an already-paused campaign, though the idempotentHint annotation already handles the latter.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key state effects. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 the output schema and annotations, the description provides the key operational context an agent needs: what pause does to queued and sent texts, and how resumption works. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from stop_campaign.

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?

The schema has full description coverage for the single 'id' parameter (cmp_… format), so the description properly leaves parameter details to the schema. No additional parameter meaning is added in the description, which is appropriate at 100% coverage.

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 ('Pause a sending campaign') and immediately explains the operational effect. It does not explicitly distinguish pause from the sibling stop_campaign, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 description implies when to pause by explaining its effect and mentions request_campaign_launch for resuming, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use pause_campaign instead of stop_campaign or cancel_text. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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