Pause a subscription

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the operation is reversible, it stops future billing, and it deliberately requires no confirmation because of that reversibility.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The primary action and effect are front-loaded, followed immediately by the reversibility and guidance on when to prefer this tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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, reversible mutation with a fully documented schema and safety-related annotations, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, what it does not do, how to reverse it, and when to choose it over its main alternative. No critical information 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 100%, and both parameters (account and order_id) are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the full burden and the baseline score of 3 is 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 uses a specific verb ('Pause') and resource ('a customer's subscription'), and explains the core behavior: 'stopping future billing while keeping the subscription itself.' It also distinguishes the tool from its siblings by positioning it against cancel_subscription and resume_subscription.

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 states when to prefer this tool: 'Prefer this over cancel_subscription whenever the customer might come back.' It also names resume_subscription as the reversal path, giving the agent clear guidance on both alternatives.

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