Stop the application's email now

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the concrete effect: the token is refused with `403 suspended_api_key` until `email_resume`, while the application itself keeps running. It also explains the required account token and that the user should be told the email is paused, which is important operational context for a mutation-like action.

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 front-loaded with the action and urgency, then covers effect, resume path, runtime impact, and auth requirements in a compact set of sentences. Every sentence contributes useful operational guidance without waste.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: what happens, what is required, how it relates to `email_resume`, and what the agent should communicate to the user. No essential behavioral or usage information appears to be missing.

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?

This tool has zero input parameters, so there is no parameter schema for the description to enrich. The mention of the required account token is auth context rather than an input parameter, making the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Stop this application's email at once." It also adds scope and distinguishes the action from `email_resume` by explaining that the token remains refused until resume. An agent can identify exactly what this tool does without opening a 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?

The description explicitly gives triggering conditions: a leaked token or a loop in the code. It names the complementary tool `email_resume` and states the prerequisite authentication requirement, including that a project key cannot perform the action. This leaves little ambiguity about when and how to use it.

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