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

The description goes beyond the annotations by specifying exactly what stopping entails: feed polling and workflow execution cease. It also explicitly states the preservation of the agent and its data, which aligns with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core action and effect, the non-destructive guarantee, and the pointer to related tools. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive state-change tool with idempotency already declared in annotations, this description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what side effects it has, how to reverse it, and how to obtain the required identifier. No output schema exists, but none is needed for an action whose success is reasonably inferable.

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?

The schema only defines agentId as a string with minLength 1 and no description. The description compensates by explaining that agent IDs can be found via campaignstack_list_signal_agents, which tells the agent where to source the required value. It doesn't restate the parameter name explicitly, but the connection to the single parameter is clear.

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 clear, specific action ('Pause a signal agent') and the concrete behavioral consequences ('stopping feed polling and workflow execution'). It also clarifies that the agent and its data are preserved, which sharply distinguishes this tool from deletion. The resource type is unambiguous even among many sibling pause tools.

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 names the inverse tool for resuming and the lookup tool for finding agent IDs, which is strong practical guidance. It implies this is the non-destructive pause option by stating data is preserved, but it does not explicitly contrast this with delete_signal_agent or other pause variants, so it stops just short of full when-and-when-not guidance.

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