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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it flips the enabled state and reschedules the next run, which explains the non-idempotent nature and the scheduling side effect. This is useful beyond what annotations provide, though it does not cover auth or error scenarios.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and provides essential detail in parentheses. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of the title.

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 the low complexity (single parameter, simple toggle action) and full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the action, the effect on the task, and the rescheduling outcome. No output schema exists, but none is needed for a toggle operation.

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 fully describes the only parameter ('id' as 'UUID of the task'), providing 100% coverage. The description does not need to add more, and it doesn't. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy 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 ('Pause or resume') with a clear resource ('scheduled task') and clarifies the mechanism ('flips its enabled state and reschedules the next run'). It is distinct from sibling tools like neuron_pause_bot or neuron_update_task by targeting the task's enabled state directly.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you want to pause or resume a scheduled task. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and differentiates it from run/update/delete task operations. Thus it provides clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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