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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it reveals that queued items for the person are dropped, that the exclusion is permanent from the tool's perspective, and that re-adding must happen externally in Fallax. This does not contradict the annotations; the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false are consistent with a state-changing but non-destructive exclusion.

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?

Three succinct sentences cover the action, the use cases, and the restoration path. No filler or redundant restatement of the title, and the most important behavioral detail is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what happens, when to use it, the side effect on queued items, and how to reverse the decision. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 for both parameters, so the schema already explains the email and reason fields. The description adds context about the person being excluded but no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb + resource: it stops the continuous programme from simulating against one person and drops queued items for them. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pause_programme, which would affect the whole programme rather than a single person.

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 explicit use cases: someone on leave, mid-onboarding, or someone who must not be tested. It does not explicitly name an alternative for programme-wide pauses, but the single-person scope makes the intended use clear.

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