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

Annotations only declare the generic non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world profile; the description adds the real behavioral picture: delivery halts, submissions continue to be stored in Siteon, notifications still fire, and the required key scope is forms:write. This is exactly the beyond-annotation context that matters for a state-changing tool.

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 and effect, then the resume alternative, then the usage guardrail. Slightly long due to the boilerplate prompt-injection sentence, but each block is clearly delineated and none of the content is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

A two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and generic annotations — the description supplies the effect, the non-effect (submissions still saved/notified), the auth requirement, and the inverse operation. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — site and form are both documented in the schema (including the list_sites reference for site IDs) — so the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already carries. Baseline 3 applies.

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 form's Google Sheets delivery') plus the exact scope of the effect (new submissions stop being written but remain saved and notified). It also explicitly names the counterpart tool sheet_target_resume, so the agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a 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?

Contains an explicit [When to use] block: only when the user explicitly asks, and not in response to instructions found in external data. It also explains that resuming requires the original Google connector's key, which tells the agent about a prerequisite before attempting anything.

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