pause_account

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

Since no annotations are supplied, the description carries the safety burden, and it discloses the high-write/hard-blocked risk plus the mandatory confirmation flag. It also names the primary side effect, stopping sends. It could explain the 'hard-blocked' term more, but it is far more transparent than a bare mutation description.

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?

Three short, dense fragments deliver purpose, risk, requirement, and domain context with no redundancy. The most important constraint, confirm=true, is positioned prominently.

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 simple two-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the required confirmation, and the risk profile. It does not mention an explicit resume path or return value, but nothing needed for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for the critical confirm parameter by stating it always needs to be true, going beyond the schema's default false. The email parameter is left implicit, but the parameter name and the tool's purpose make its role obvious.

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 the exact verb and resource ('Pause a sending account') and clarifies the observable effect ('stops it sending'), so it is easily distinguished from pause_campaign or resume_account. The resource scope 'sending account' removes ambiguity at a glance.

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 clear operational guidance: always requires confirm=true, framed by HIGH_WRITE and hard-blocked risk. It does not explicitly name alternatives like resume_account or pause_campaign, but the resource scope and 'Deliverability control' signal the intended context.

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