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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that the definition is preserved and last_published_version is set to 0, and that republishing any version resumes. This goes beyond the annotation to explain the exact state change and reversibility, with no contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every phrase adds information: what happens, what is preserved, and how to reverse. No filler.

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 one-parameter tool with a clear annotation profile and output schema, the description covers the behavior, the state change, and the reversal path. It lacks explicit prerequisites or edge cases, but for this simple tool the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema already describes schedule_id as 'the schedule id to deactivate (stops firing; definition preserved)', which is 100% coverage. The description repeats this concept without adding new syntax or format details, so it adds little beyond the 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?

The description clearly states that the tool deactivates a schedule, stopping its cron firing. It distinguishes from delete by noting the definition is preserved, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it: when you want to stop a schedule while preserving its definition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_schedule or publish_schedule, nor state conditions for when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between related tools.

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