pause_sensor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it flags the write operation, labels risk=medium, and discloses reversibility and auto-resume behavior. It stops short of mentioning permission requirements or response/error behavior, but the core side-effect profile is clearly communicated.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each line contributing useful information: the write/risk tag, reversibility, auto-resume semantics, and parameter explanations. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema defaults.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all required parameters, default behavior, and reversibility. It could add explicit note about expected return values or failure conditions, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 fully compensates. It explains that object_id can be a sensor/device/group, that minutes=0 means indefinite, that message is shown in PRTG, and that target defaults to the config value. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Pause a PRTG object', and immediately names the reversal tool resume_sensor. It also clarifies that object_id can refer to a sensor, device, or group, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 gives clear operating context: pausing can be open-ended or time-bound and is reversible via resume_sensor. It does not explicitly contrast with related tools like mute_alerts or schedule_maintenance, but the behavior is distinctive enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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