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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: the active-status precondition, the error on invalid status, and the fact that the pause and its reason are written into the goal's history. Reversibility via activate_goal is also disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the core action and effect, then the precondition, then the reversibility note, then the arg list. No sentence is wasted, though the Args block partly restates parameter semantics already implied by the sentence flow.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Combined with annotations covering safety and the description covering preconditions, error behavior, history side effects, and the resume path, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it documents both parameters: goal_id as a UUID of the goal and reason as an optional human-readable reason. That fully maps the two args with type/optionality meaning, though it adds no constraints or examples for reason.

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 an active goal') plus the effect ('stops being pursued until reactivated'), and explicitly names the counterpart tool activate_goal for resuming. An agent can distinguish this from update_goal, close_goal, and activate_goal without opening any schema.

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 an explicit precondition ('Only a goal in active status can be paused'), the failure mode for violating it ('any other status returns an error'), and the follow-up alternative ('Resume it later with activate_goal'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative path are all covered.

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