Pause a Monitor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by specifying what is destroyed — the active execution — but omits auth requirements, reversibility (that resume_monitor can undo it), and any side effects on queued runs.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the operation and its consequence. No filler or redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with undocumented parameters, no usage routing, and an unstated relationship to resume_monitor, the definition is only minimally sufficient for a mutation tool.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. The required 'id' is self-evident, but the optional 'debug' flag is undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (pause a monitor) and pinpoints the two effects: it stops scheduling and cancels the in-flight execution. This distinguishes it from resume_monitor and cancel_monitor_run without opening schemas, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to pause versus cancel_monitor_run or resume_monitor, and no prerequisites or state conditions are given. The agent must infer usage from the operation name alone.

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