pause_sensor

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

Annotations declare destructive=true and it tells the agent the action is reversible via resume_sensor and describes the auto-resume timing, which is genuinely useful context beyond the structured hints. It stops short of stating required permissions or what happens to in-flight alerts when pausing.

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?

Front-loaded with the write/safety tag then a one-line purpose, followed by a tight Args block. Every line earns its place; the only minor cost is restating parameter meanings that already live in the schema titles.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, reversibility, parameter meanings, and the open-ended/auto-resume behavior. Annotations already carry the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing, though permission requirements remain unstated.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does so for all four parameters: object_id scope (sensor/device/group), minutes=0 semantics, message purpose, and target config override with default. This compensates well for the undocumented schema, though format details (e.g., valid target names) are absent.

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 (Pause) and resource (PRTG object/sensor) with a clear scope marker in the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the resume_sensor sibling by naming it as the reversal path, so an agent can route between the two without opening schemas.

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?

It explains the key behavioral branch: minutes=0 means open-ended pause, otherwise auto-resume. It also names resume_sensor as the undo path. What's missing is explicit guidance on when to pause vs. alternatives like schedule_maintenance_prtg or mute_alerts, which overlap semantically.

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