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

With annotations only flagging readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, the description carries the behavioral weight well: it states the graceful-stop semantics (current post completes), that already-transferred data is preserved, that the operation is resumable, and that a precondition (post counting in progress) blocks it. That is exactly the mutation-safety context the annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: action, state preservation/continuation, and the blocking precondition. Front-loaded with the core effect, 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 one-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, side effects on state, resumability, and the failure precondition — enough to invoke it correctly. Only the return/confirmation behaviour is left implicit, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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% and the single routeId parameter is already documented as coming from routes.list, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does all the work.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and object ('Ставит перенос истории по маршруту на паузу') and explains the concrete mechanics — the bridge finishes the post in flight before stopping. It implicitly separates itself from the opposite operation (continue at any time), but never names the closely related siblings import_cancel, import_resume, or especially route_pause, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (pause now, resume later from the same point) and an explicit negative condition: pause is unavailable while post counting is running, in which case the agent should wait or cancel instead. It stops short of naming the actual alternative tools (import_cancel / import_resume) to route to.

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