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

With no annotations provided, the description carries that burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the mutation's reversible nature, the seller-side scope, and a hard authentication requirement ('REQUIRES OPERATOR KEY'). It does not state whether in-flight requests are cut off or what happens to existing sessions, which keeps it from a top score.

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 terse clauses, each earning its place: purpose, reversibility, and auth requirement, all front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 and no annotations, the description supplies the critical operational facts (reversible, operator-key gated, non-destructive). The only real gap is the meaning of endpoint_id, which it never addresses.

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 one parameter (endpoint_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all. The agent must infer that endpoint_id refers to a gateway-registered endpoint identifier and that it is required, which the description could have stated in a few words.

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 ('stop selling an endpoint') and immediately constrains the scope ('without deleting it'), which cleanly separates it from gateway_delete and gateway_resume. An agent can place this tool in the gateway lifecycle 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?

The 'without deleting it' framing implicitly tells the agent to prefer this over gateway_delete when the endpoint should be retained, and it names gateway_resume as the inverse operation. It stops short of spelling out prerequisite states (e.g., what happens if the endpoint is already paused or the endpoint_id is unknown).

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