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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: activating causes real people to receive messages, and it mandates user confirmation. It stops short of detailing timing/cancellation behavior.

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 effect front-loaded, followed by the safety instruction. No wasted wording, though not exceptionally rich.

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?

No output schema, but the description conveys the state change and the confirmation requirement an agent needs to act correctly. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, it is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents sequenceId (from list_sequences) and idempotencyKey. The description adds no parameter detail beyond this, making the baseline 3 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 and resource ('Turn a drip sequence on') and clarifies the effect ('enrolled contacts start receiving its messages at their delays'). This implicitly contrasts with pause_sequence/deactivate siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides a conditional instruction ('confirm with the user first') that signals caution before invoking, but does not name alternatives such as pause_sequence or explain when-not to use it. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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