Pause or resume the game

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond those: the change affects everyone in the game and requires write permission. This helps an agent understand the global impact and authorization needs, which annotations alone do not convey.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and parameter behavior, followed by a short but essential authorization note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-boolean-parameter tool, the description plus schema and annotations cover all essentials: the action, the parameter meaning, the global scope, the permission requirement, and idempotency. No output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary.

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 input schema already describes the single parameter fully: 'true pauses, false resumes.' The description repeats this exact semantic, adding no new information about the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: pause or resume the game. It also clarifies that the effect applies 'for everyone,' which distinguishes this from any user-local pause or per-user state. This is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling 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?

The description communicates the core usage context: use it to pause or resume the game globally. It also includes the required permission prerequisite ('Needs the write switch'), which is practical guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but no sibling appears to offer a comparable pause/resume function, so no exclusion is necessary.

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