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

Beyond the destructive annotation, the description discloses the important side effect that restart and reactivate can increase spending and may require an explicit confirmation before acting. It also explains that the tool returns a confirmation request instead of mutating when budget-group impact is detected, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive action.

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: it opens with the actions, then states the reactivate condition, then the spending confirmation flow, and finally the return behavior. Every sentence adds useful operational context without repetition.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the critical decision path: action effects, required reactivate end_date, budget-impact confirmation, and the basic return outcome. It does not specify the full shape of the operation result, but it is otherwise complete for correct invocation.

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 already documents action enums, end_date constraints, confirm_budget_impact semantics, and auto_pause_ignore_historical_data. The description reinforces end_date and confirmation behavior but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the already-rich schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names specific operations (pause, restart, reactivate) on a specific resource (one launched experiment), and explicitly separates keyword-level pause/restart as a different operation. That gives an agent a clear basis for distinguishing this tool from siblings such as pause_experiment_keyword or restart_experiment_keyword.

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 clear action-level usage: pause stops, restart resumes, and reactivate reruns a Completed experiment until a required end_date. It also names one alternative operation for keyword-level management, though it does not exhaustively compare against related tools like update_experiment_end_date.

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