Pause (disable) a feed — it stops being exported/submitted on schedule. Returns {feedId, action:'pause', status:'disabled', feedStatus, enabled:false}. feed_id from list_feeds / create_feed; project_id OPTIONAL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the real side effect (scheduled exports/submissions stop) and the exact return shape with status:'disabled' and enabled:false. This gives the agent a clear model of what happens when the tool is invoked, with no hidden surprises and no contradiction with annotations.
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 two compact sentences with the main effect front-loaded. The return shape and parameter sourcing are packed into the second sentence without filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 state-changing tool, the description covers the effect, the response shape, and the source of the required parameter, while annotations cover safety and idempotence. It is slightly incomplete because project_id's role is undefined and there is no pointer to resume_feed for reversing the pause, but these are not blocking for correct invocation.
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 adds useful provenance for feed_id (from list_feeds / create_feed), but project_id is only described as 'OPTIONAL', which merely restates the schema's required list. The purpose of project_id and when to include it are not explained, so the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.
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 and resource: 'Pause (disable) a feed'. It clearly states the behavioral consequence — it stops being exported/submitted on schedule — which distinguishes this from resume_feed, submit_feed, delete_feed, and restore_feed. This is unambiguous and selection-relevant.
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 implies when to use the tool via its defined effect and tells the agent where feed_id comes from (list_feeds / create_feed). However, it never names alternatives such as resume_feed or delete_feed, and it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
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.
Tools are organized around distinct resources (ads, marketplaces, feeds, orders, rules, sources) with clear action verbs, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate near-pairs like get_feed_status vs ad_status or set_feed_filter vs set_feed_attribute_filter. A few similarly named status/action pairs (e.g. ad_status vs get_ad, run_ad_item_action vs run_ad_operation) require careful reading, but overall the purposes are separable.
The overwhelming majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, set_*, run_*, test_*). Minor deviations like ad_status and marketplace_status (noun-based status tools) and koongo_knowledge break the pattern slightly, but the convention is clearly recognizable and predictable.
At 105 tools, the surface is extreme and far beyond the 50+ threshold, even for a complex e-commerce integration domain. Much of the bloat comes from systematic triplication across ads, marketplaces, and feeds (e.g. three nearly identical map_*_attribute tools, three list_*_items, three get_*_report) that a generic resource parameter could have consolidated.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle of feeds, ads, marketplaces, order connections, rules, and imports, including create/read/update/delete, status monitoring, item-level actions, validation, repair, and restore. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete for standalone order connections and limited update capabilities for some entities, but these are workable and do not create dead ends for the core workflows.
