pause_recurring_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the core effect (generation stops). It does not say whether the pause is reversible (a resume sibling exists), what happens to invoices already generated, or what permissions are needed for this state mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, the effect front-loaded and the confirmation guard second. No filler, nothing redundant with the schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and effect but omits reversibility, side effects on existing invoices, and any return/status information. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so both 'id' and 'pauseReason' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, range, or semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Names a specific verb (pause) and resource (recurring invoice schedule) and states the immediate consequence: it stops generating invoices. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the closest siblings resume_recurring_schedule, activate_recurring_schedule, and delete_recurring_schedule, though the verbs are self-evidently distinct.

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?

'Pause an active ... schedule' implies a precondition (the schedule must be active) and 'Confirm with the user first' gives a procedural rule. It never says when to pause versus delete or resume, so the choice among the four schedule-state siblings is left to inference.

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