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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the ~30 second propagation delay, the parked/skipped-and-replayed semantics for distiller and curator jobs, and that a nightly dream pass is simply skipped. Missing only idempotency and error behavior for a redundant call, which is a minor gap for a boolean setter.

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 action and permission requirement are front-loaded in the first line, with consequences in a short follow-up paragraph. Every sentence adds distinct information about timing or job handling; nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the auth requirement, latency, and downstream effects on queued jobs. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter mutation, lacking only failure/idempotency notes.

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 100% and the schema itself documents both parameters, including the enum member note that retention cannot be paused. The description only reinforces the pause/resume mapping of the boolean without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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 pair (pause/resume) and resource (glian) scoped to 'this org', which cleanly distinguishes it from the read-oriented glian_status and the execution-oriented glian_run_now. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so disambiguation relies on inference.

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?

'Needs org:admin' is a genuine prerequisite statement, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over glian_status or glian_run_now, and no when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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