pause_everywhere

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

The description goes beyond the basic action by disclosing the access pattern ('1 read + N writes'), the per-device API attempts, and the 'non-restricted device' qualifier. This is valuable context given there are no annotations. It does not fully detail partial-failure behavior or what happens to already-paused devices, but the 'attempts' wording covers the key risk.

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 two tight segments: a core action with API detail and a use-case hook, plus a quota note. No filler words; each clause earns its place. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, why it is useful, the underlying API calls, and quota implications. It does not describe the return structure, but the response_format parameter and dry_run option partly address that. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect in terms of side effects.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already explains dry_run and response_format. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 precise, specific action: 'Pause every live Connect device' with a clear resource scope. It also names the underlying API call (PUT /me/player/pause per non-restricted device), making the tool's behavior unambiguous. It immediately distinguishes itself from the single-device 'pause' sibling by emphasizing 'every live Connect device'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: the 'which speaker is still playing' hunt, implying a multi-device scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the multi-device scope in the first phrase is enough to differentiate from the sibling 'pause' tool. A more explicit 'use pause for a single device' would earn a 5.

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