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 covered. The description adds the useful precondition that the keyword must be paused, but does not explain the consequences of a 'destructive' restart (e.g. resumed spend, effect on stats) — a notable gap given the destructive hint.

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 concise sentence with the action and object front-loaded and zero waste. It is arguably too terse for a destructive mutation, but structurally efficient.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (two required params, no output schema) and the params are fully described. However, for a destructive open-world mutation, one sentence leaves out what restarting actually restores and whether it can be reversed, so an agent must infer behavior.

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 required parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no further semantics about ID formats or required relationships, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 (restart) and resource (experiment keyword) with a scope qualifier (paused). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like pause_experiment_keyword and list_experiment_keywords by the action, though the sibling is not named.

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?

Usage is implied by the precondition 'paused keyword' — use this to undo a pause. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, no mention of the pause_experiment_keyword counterpart, and no prerequisites such as the experiment needing to be active.

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