Pause a site

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description usefully disambiguates what "destructive" means here (visitors see a paused page, but files, versions and subdomain are retained) and that the action is reversible. It does not cover permissions, auth requirements, or propagation timing, so it adds solid but not exhaustive context beyond the annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and its key guarantee, followed by the counterpart tool. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 an output schema present and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining decision-critical facts: reversibility, data preservation, and the sibling that undoes it. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 description coverage is 100% and the single site parameter is fully documented there (subdomain or id, sourced from list_sites). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Takes a site off the air") with the crucial qualifier that nothing is deleted, which immediately separates it from delete_site and from sibling update_site. An agent can pick this over its siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Names the inverse operation (resume_site) and states the condition that selects this tool: you want the site offline while files, versions and subdomain survive. No explicit when-not guidance or prerequisites, so it stops short of a 5.

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