pause_automation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: new triggers stop matching, in-flight runs hold at their next step, and reactivation re-wakes them with unfinished waits honored. It does not mention idempotency, error handling for already paused automations, or required permissions, but covers the main effects well.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and its consequences. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then explains the effects. No unnecessary words. Structural clarity is high.

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 simple tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context about the tool's behavior. It explains what happens to triggers and runs. It could mention the return value or error conditions, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable. Slight gap in not describing the response format.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: the parameters 'id' and 'sender' are described in the schema with brief descriptions. The tool description does not elaborate on their semantics, so no incremental value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: pausing an active automation. It explains the effects on new triggers and in-flight runs, and explicitly distinguishes from related actions like reactivation. The verb 'pause' and resource 'automation' are specific, and the description differentiates it from siblings like 'resume_automation' and 'abort_automation'.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to temporarily pause an automation) and explains the behavior (new triggers stop, in-flight runs hold). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'abort_automation' for permanent stoppage, but the sibling list provides context. A brief exclusion note would improve clarity.

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