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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those flags: it explains that the definition is preserved, that last_published_version is set to 0, and that republishing resumes it. This directly addresses what gets changed, though it doesn't discuss error behavior when already unpublished.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the primary effect and the reversibility note are both front-loaded and each earns its place.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description needn't explain return values or the destructive profile. It covers the key semantic effect and reversibility well, though a note on idempotency/error-if-already-unpublished would complete it.

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 single parameter's schema description already says 'stops firing; definition preserved'. The description reinforces but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb (deactivate) and resource (schedule) plus the concrete effect ('stops firing on its cron'). This clearly distinguishes it from delete_schedule (definition preserved) and publish_schedule (the reverse operation), so an agent can route correctly.

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 gives clear context for when to use it (to stop firing without destroying the definition) and implicitly points to publish_schedule via 'republish any version later to resume'. It does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_schedule or state exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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