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

The description discloses several crucial behaviors beyond annotations: credits already used are not refunded, restarting warmup begins from week 1 and costs credits again, and the return value includes { success: true, previousStatus }. It also explains the informational response when no active warmup exists. This is rich, relevant behavioral context that matches the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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?

The description is five sentences, each carrying important information: the primary action, credit/restart consequences, return shape, no-op behavior, and a pointer to the relevant sibling tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with no output schema and two parameters, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, side effects, return structure, edge-case behavior, and where to look for warmup states. There is no missing operational detail that would prevent 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains googleAccountId and workspaceId. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but because the schema is fully self-documenting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Disable email warmup for a connected Google account.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the enable_warmup sibling and from read-only warmup list/status tools. The purpose is unambiguous and directly actionable.

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 gives clear context for using the tool, including behavior when no active warmup exists and a pointer to campaignstack_list_workspace_warmups for viewing all warmup states. It does not explicitly say 'use enable_warmup to enable instead,' but the opposite operation is implied by the tool's name and description. A minor gap is the lack of explicit exclusions, such as 'do not use if warmup is already disabled'.

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