pause_persistence

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

The description details behavioral traits: all write tools return no-op responses with specific fields (`persisted: false`, `id: 'no-persist'`), and read tools are unaffected. It also mentions TTL bounds. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent, and the description adds context beyond annotations. However, it does not fully clarify idempotency implications (e.g., whether calling pause again resets the TTL), so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 informative and well-structured with a clear introduction, behavioral details, and usage guidance. However, it is slightly verbose (e.g., listing all affected tools in parentheses). Every sentence is valuable, but it could be tightened.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description is quite complete. It explains the effect on other tools, scope, and use cases. It could be improved by mentioning whether calling pause multiple times resets the TTL, but overall it is comprehensive.

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?

The only parameter is `ttl_seconds`, which is fully described in the input schema (type, default, min, max, description). The description repeats the default and upper bound in natural language but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly elevate it.

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: 'Pause write operations on this MCP server for an opt-in TTL window.' It specifies the verb 'pause', the resource 'write operations on this MCP server', and the scope. It distinguishes from siblings like resume_persistence and persistence_status by explicitly listing affected and unaffected tools.

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?

Provides explicit usage contexts: 'Use for benchmarking, AB testing, or ephemeral exploration where memory contamination must be avoided.' Also gives a when-not directive: 'This affects only this MCP server (cpersona). Call cscheduler's pause_persistence too if you want both paused.' This clearly guides the agent on when and when not to use.

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