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

Annotations only contain a title, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses permanent cancel ('cancel (permanent)'), skip_next behavior ('nothing books or charges that week'), the lack of agent-side resume/reactivate/ceiling change, and auth requirements. This goes well beyond what the schema alone offers, giving the agent essential operational knowledge.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence serves a distinct function: listing actions, explaining the permanent/stop-only nature, and noting auth. Parentheticals and quotes efficiently pack nuance without bloat. 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 tool with four actions, permanent side effects, and auth needs, the description covers all critical aspects: what each action does, the permanence of cancel, the skip_next effect, the absence of resume/reactivate, and authentication. Even without an output schema, the operational context is thoroughly addressed.

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?

The input schema already has 100% parameter coverage, including enum descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable nuance beyond the schema: 'cancel' is permanent, 'skip_next' skips one week's pickup with no booking/charge, and the STOP-ONLY design reinforces that no resume action exists. This extra semantics justifies a 4.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Check or stop a recurring lane automation.' It then enumerates the four actions ('status', 'pause', 'cancel', 'skip_next'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like automate_lane (creation) and status (general status). The differentiation is explicit and concrete.

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 description explicitly states when-not: 'STOP-ONLY by design: there is no agent-side resume, reactivate, or ceiling change — those exist only behind the account owner's emailed approval link.' This tells the agent that trying to resume or reactivate is futile, and that the tool is for stopping or checking automations. It also lists the exact actions available, providing clear usage context.

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