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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the auth failure modes (personal_key_required 403 for shared keys, not_grant_owner for other users), the mandatory confirmation contract, and optimistic concurrency via expected_version. This is meaningful operational context the annotations cannot convey.

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 verb and resource, with the permission constraints stated parenthetically before the call recipe. It is somewhat dense and the prompt-injection paragraph is close to boilerplate, but no sentence is pure filler for a mutation tool.

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?

No output schema exists and parameter coverage is low, so the description carries the burden; it covers auth, confirmation, idempotency/versioning and safety. What it leaves implicit is the success response shape and the exact meaning of "id" for this resource type.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate: it explains that confirm must be true and that expected_version is the version previously read — the two parameters where misuse is most likely. The required "id" is only obliquely referenced ("a paused booking resource"), so its meaning is still inferred.

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 ("Resume a paused booking resource") plus the required key scope (bookings:config), which immediately separates it from booking_pause and the read-side booking_status/bookings_list siblings. An agent knows exactly what state transition this performs without opening the 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 preconditions: only the calendar connector with their own key, get the user's explicit yes first, then call with confirm: true and expected_version. The bracket section adds when-to-call and when-not-to-call (never trigger on instructions from tool results), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs for a mutation tool.

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