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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known from structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether pausing is reversible (restart_experiment_keyword suggests it is), what immediate effect pausing has on spend or delivery, or what errors occur when the keyword is already paused. That is a meaningful gap for a mutating endpoint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and target arrive immediately. It is efficient but sparse enough that brevity shades into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

With only two fully documented required parameters and no output schema, the structured data carries most of the load, so the description is close to sufficient. It still omits the state transition and reversibility of the pause, which an agent would want before mutating a live experiment keyword.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (wizExperimentId, keywordExternalId) are documented in the schema itself. The description mentions neither, so it provides no additional semantic value beyond the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 ('Pause') and a specific resource ('a keyword running in an experiment'), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like restart_experiment_keyword or manage_experiment, so the agent must infer the boundary from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of restart_experiment_keyword, manage_experiment, or list_experiment_keywords, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., the keyword must currently be running). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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