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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description usefully adds that pausing stops dequeuing of runs, which is behavioral detail beyond the annotation. It does not say what happens to already-dequeued or in-flight runs, nor confirm the action is reversible (though 'or resume it' implies so). Adequate but incomplete.

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 the action and mechanism front-loaded, plus the endpoint. Nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggering scenario, and one behavioral effect. It stops short of noting reversibility guarantees or the fate of in-flight runs.

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% with both parameters fully described ('queue' name or id, 'paused' true/false), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra syntax or constraint detail beyond it.

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 and resource ('pause a queue so its runs stop being dequeued, or resume it') and clarifies the mechanism, which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like trigger_get_queue and trigger_list_queues.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use scenario ('the containment move when a task is failing in a loop') but names no alternative tool, so an agent must infer that trigger_cancel_run and trigger_replay_run are not substitutes.

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