saas_api_pause_location_deprecated

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description matches this by stating 'Pause location', a state change. It adds the token requirement as behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations. It does not disclose any side effects or reversibility, but given the simple nature, the description is adequate.

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 exceptionally concise—a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and an essential usage constraint. Every word adds value, making it a model of brevity.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary action and a key prerequisite. However, it omits any mention of the deprecated status or the existence of the non-deprecated sibling, which is important contextual information for an agent deciding which tool to use. This gap reduces completeness.

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 100% with minimal per-parameter descriptions ('Paused', 'Company ID', 'Location ID...'). The main description does not add additional meaning to these parameters, but since the schema already documents them, the description's lack of parameter detail is acceptable. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Pause location'. It adds a critical context note about the required token type. However, it does not distinguish itself from its non-deprecated sibling tool 'saas_api_pause_location', and the name 'deprecated' is not reflected in the description, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

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 provides a specific usage condition: 'requires an agency-level token, not a location PIT'. This is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention the non-deprecated alternative or when to prefer one over the other, leaving the agent to guess which version to call.

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