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

Annotations only declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantially beyond them: login is required, the need is not hidden from search, the default window is 7 days within 1-90, and it returns a preferenceId that revoke_my_match_preference uses to restore early (with a fallback query when missing). This reversibility and scope disclosure is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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 dense but front-loaded and segmented with 【】 markers (login, combination chain), and every clause carries information (login, default, reversibility, alternatives). It is slightly heavy for a 2-parameter tool, but there is no obvious filler to cut.

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 mutation tool with only 2 parameters, no output schema, and safety already covered by annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: auth requirement, duration semantics, the non-hiding behavior, the restoration path, and sibling routing. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both needId (from list_my_needs) and days (1-90, default 7). The description restates the 1-90/default-7 window and the needId source, adding essentially no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: temporarily pausing automatic ice-breaking ('自动破冰') for the user's on-shelf needs, and explicitly notes it does NOT hide the need from search. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming unpublish_need (hiding) and the global snooze/icebreak=false path, so an agent can tell it apart from cancel_need or unpublish_need 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?

It gives explicit when/when-not routing: use this to pause a single need, use snooze/icebreak=false for a global pause, and use unpublish_need to hide the need. It also names the upstream combination chain (list_my_needs→pause) and the recovery path, leaving nothing to inference.

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