Pause a Rank Radar

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that tracking stops for all keywords, the Daily Tracked Keywords quota is freed, data and history are retained, the operation is idempotent, and the resulting status is PAUSED not ARCHIVED. The description's 'without losing anything / fully reversible' claim clarifies rather than contradicts the conservative destructiveHint:true — the hint signals mutation, the description explains why no data is destroyed.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: terminology mapping, behavioral effects, reversibility, sibling routing, status semantics, and idempotency. Dense but logically ordered with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage: an agent knows what it does, when to pick it, what changes, what doesn't, how to reverse it, and how to verify the result via list_rank_radars. Nothing needed to call it 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents rankRadarId as the Rank Radar UUID from list_rank_radars, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds surrounding context (quota, status, reversal) but no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 + resource ('pause tracking on a Rank Radar') and immediately resolves the API terminology trap: 'the action the DataDive API calls archiving'. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools delete_rank_radar, resume_rank_radar, and implicitly from pause_rank_radar_search_terms by scoping to the whole Rank Radar.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when a user asks to archive a Rank Radar'), names the reversal alternative (resume_rank_radar), and routes around delete_rank_radar ('prefer it... whenever the user may want the data back'). Also clarifies the status semantics in list_rank_radars so an agent knows how to verify the outcome.

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