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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses login requirements, reversibility, no effect on feed/search visibility, absence from list_my_match_preferences, recovery via revoke_my_match_preference using the returned preferenceId, and expiration behavior. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, or destructiveHint=false.

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?

Three labeled sections pack authentication, core semantics, escalation alternatives, and operational constraints without filler. The hierarchy and recovery path earn their sentences, and the structure makes the content scannable for an agent.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides everything needed: what it does, when to use it versus alternatives, side effects on visibility, recovery path, and exact parameter rules. It even names the returned preferenceId, so the absence of an output schema is not a practical gap.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful constraint context: needId must belong to an own active need or the call exits, days range 1–90 with default 7, and a preferenceId is returned for later revocation. This goes slightly beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 opening line defines the tool as pausing a single need for N days so it is no longer introduced to people, while remaining visible and searchable in feeds. It also explicitly positions itself against set_notification_prefs and unpublish_need, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling operations.

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 lays out a four-level stop-loss hierarchy: this tool (pause one need) < icebreakSnoozeUntil (global pause) < icebreak:false (no icebreak groups) < unpublish_need (delist). It also states that needId must be the caller's own active need, giving concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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