Pause all publishing

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), which already flag the operation as a risky write. The description discloses the exact blast radius — no `now`/`schedule` posts can be created and queued posts are parked to HELD rather than sent — plus the irreversible, API-unresolvable resume path.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the highest-stakes information (immediate halt, kill switch) before triggers and the irreversibility caveat. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 destructive, org-wide switch with no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, triggers, and recovery constraints well. It does not say what the call returns or whether a confirmation/response object indicates the paused state, which is the only remaining gap.

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% and the single optional `reason` parameter is fully documented in the schema as recorded in the audit trail. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Immediately halt ALL publishing for this organization') plus the kill-switch scope, which cleanly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling postsider_get_publishing_state. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 concrete trigger conditions ('when something is wrong, for example a PR crisis, a post on the wrong channel, or a runaway automation loop') and a clear when-not for recovery ('Resume is human-only (owner, dashboard); this cannot be undone via the API'). It stops short of naming the sibling to inspect state first (postsider_get_publishing_state), so it is clear context rather than fully explicit alternatives.

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