Draft pausing auto-apply recommendations

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that the call is a dry run using validate_only, that a plan_id must be applied separately, that invalid types are refused by name, and that a single confirmation suffices because pausing reduces automation. This is exactly the mutation-safety context annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded with the preview nature and the single supported change, then prerequisites and follow-up. It is somewhat long, but every paragraph carries distinct operational information; 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 two-parameter mutation preview with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, dry-run mechanics, follow-up, and the deliberate exclusion. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that types must have an ENABLED subscription and describing the refusal behavior for missing/already-paused types, plus the get_recommendation_subscriptions lookup path, which goes beyond the schema's bare parameter descriptions.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (pause auto-apply for recommendation types) and immediately states it returns a PREVIEW, which distinguishes it from confirm_and_apply and get_recommendation_subscriptions. Scope is precisely bounded ('Pausing is the only change this tool can make').

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?

Explicit when/when-not: only pausing is supported, re-enabling is deliberately excluded with a rationale (preview safety). It also states the prerequisite (types must have an ENABLED subscription, see get_recommendation_subscriptions) and the follow-up step (apply plan_id with confirm_and_apply).

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