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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool sets status to paused_manual and stops dispatch, providing some behavioral context. However, it omits details like required permissions or side effects on pending orders.

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 a single sentence with a parenthetical clarification. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action. No redundant information.

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, idempotent mutation with an output schema, the description covers the state change adequately. It could mention reversibility via strategy_resume, but the tool is otherwise complete.

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%, and the description does not explain the two required parameters (strategy_id and wallet_address). The names provide minimal hint, but no format or behavior guidance is given. The description should compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action 'Manually pause a strategy' and defines the resulting status and behavior ('status=paused_manual; stops dispatch'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like strategy_resume and strategy_cancel.

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 manual initiation of pause via 'Manually pause'. While it does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, the sibling context makes it clear. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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