Pause Monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the monitor persists but stops sending notifications and collecting data. This is more transparent than a generic 'pauses monitoring' and directly informs the agent of the state change impact.

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 with a concise, clear structure. It front-loads the action and immediately clarifies the non-destructive nature, making it efficient with no wasted words.

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?

With one parameter, complete schema coverage, and an output schema (although not detailed in context), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and effects. However, it doesn't mention prerequisites or effects on related resources, and with no annotations, a slightly richer context could be expected, but it remains adequate.

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 only parameter 'monitorID' is already described as 'The ID of the monitor to pause.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter semantics.

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 function with a specific verb ('Pauses') and resource ('a monitor'), and it distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting the monitor remains in the system but stops checks, which sets it apart from deletion or other monitor operations. It could further differentiate from 'resumeMonitor' but the action is clear.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want to stop checks without removing the monitor) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the sibling 'resumeMonitor' exists, a note about resuming could improve guidance, but the contextual implication is adequate.

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