pause_periodization_planPause an active authored plan and hand control back to the automatic engine. Lossless — your policy is retained for resume; any pending authored recommendations are cleared. The auto-engine rebuilds its own plan next cycle. No-op if no authored plan is active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral details: policy retention for resume, clearing of pending authored recommendations, and the auto-engine rebuilding its own plan next cycle. It also mentions the no-op condition. This goes beyond annotations and provides transparency that helps an agent predict side effects.
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 sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action, then adds losslessness, side effects, and no-op condition in logical order. 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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what action is performed, side effects (clearing recommendations, engine rebuilding), retention of policy, and no-op behavior. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no obligation to explain parameters. However, it provides context on what the operation affects (the active authored plan), which is valuable. With no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema.
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 the specific action 'Pause an active authored plan' and the resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like resume_periodization_plan. It also clarifies what 'pause' means in this domain, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explains when to use the tool: when there is an active authored plan and you want to revert to automatic control. It also states a no-op condition, which is useful. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling names (resume_periodization_plan, set_periodization_plan) imply the context. Clear context and exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.