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

Annotations only give a generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), while the description adds substantive behavior: no new cases start, in-progress runs finish, pending cases remain pending, the change takes effect immediately and is unaffected by revision activation or rollback. It also discloses authorization requirements and a feature-rollout 403 failure mode, which no structured field conveys.

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 core effect before the caveats, and nearly every sentence adds distinct information (effect, revision interaction, no-op case, permissions, rollout). The revision sentence is slightly long and hedged, but it earns its place by preempting a real ambiguity about automation revisions.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what does not change, idempotency of repeat calls, required authorization, and the specific error the agent may hit. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("The queue's unique identifier" with a UUID pattern), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no further detail about queue_id, such as where to obtain it or whether the caller's team scope matters. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Pause a queue") and immediately delimits it from its inverse by describing what a paused queue does and that it stays paused "until the queue is resumed." An agent can distinguish this from resumeQueue and updateQueue without opening any schema.

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 explicit conditions: use it to stop new cases while letting in-progress runs finish; the operation is a no-op on an already paused queue; permissions are enumerated (builder, team admin, or case trigger on); and the 403 rollout caveat tells the agent when the call will fail. The inverse tool (resumeQueue) is implicitly named and noted as always available, which is a clear alternative.

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