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

Annotations only say non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds real substance beyond that: concluded is terminal, accounts remain readable (CRM-6), and the effect is status moved plus reason retained. It stops short of stating reversibility of pause or permission requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the action verb, then the reason rule, then the terminal consequence. The parenthetical ticket references (CRM-7 extended, CRM-6) add mild noise but the core sentences earn their place.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the required-reason rule, terminality, and the resulting state. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though it says nothing about the return shape or error behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by explaining why reason is required (a decision that gets asked about later) and tying status changes to the terminal consequence, giving semantic weight beyond the schema's terse 'Where it moves.'

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 specific verbs and resource: 'Pause, resume or conclude a campaign', with 'status moved' as the effect. Clear what it does, but it never names the neighboring crm_update_campaign to disambiguate the two, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 concrete conditions: reason is mandatory for paused and concluded, concluded is terminal. It omits explicit guidance about when to use this instead of crm_update_campaign, but the state-machine framing makes the intended usage clear.

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