Pause a subscription

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

Beyond the annotations (non-destructive, idempotent, not read-only), the description adds the two facts that matter: nothing is lost and the pause is reversible via resume_subscription. It also notes the return value. Minor gaps remain, such as whether in-flight deliveries are aborted, but the essential behavioral picture is covered.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its key constraint, then reversibility, then the return value. No filler and nothing an agent must read twice.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, side effects, reversibility, and return value. The only unstated detail is edge-case behavior on in-flight deliveries, which is minor.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with an example format and its origin (create_subscription / list_subscriptions). The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop polling and webhook deliveries for a subscription') and immediately scopes the effect ('without deleting it'), which cleanly separates it from delete_subscription and resume_subscription. An agent can pick this tool without opening the 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?

It gives a clear condition for choosing this tool over the destructive alternative and names resume_subscription as the inverse path. It stops short of an explicit 'use when X, do not use when Y' statement, but the routing is unambiguous.

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