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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that resuming also 're-enables its associated automations,' which is a non-obvious side effect. It does not describe failure states, but the idempotency annotation partially covers repeated-call safety.

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 carry the essential information: what the tool does, what side effect it has, and which sibling handles the inverse operation. There is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover purpose, side effects, idempotency, and the counterpart tool. The main gap is that watchId semantics are only implied rather than explicitly defined, and there is no mention of what happens if the watch is not currently paused.

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 only defines watchId as a string with minLength 1, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to clarify the parameter. It does not explicitly state that watchId is the identifier of the paused competitor watch. However, the tool name and the phrase 'Resumes a paused competitor watch' make the single parameter's role reasonably inferable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resumes') with a clear resource ('a paused competitor watch') and states the concrete outcome ('re-enables its associated automations'). It also distinguishes this tool from its pause counterpart by naming campaignstack_pause_competitor_watch, so the agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly points to the alternative operation: 'Use campaignstack_pause_competitor_watch to pause monitoring.' This gives useful context for when to use this tool vs. its inverse. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or other alternatives, but the resume/pause pairing is sufficient for the common case.

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