Ops MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the DAG remains visible in the UI, scheduled runs are prevented, and already-running runs continue. It also hints at a confirmation return. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or rate limits, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameters well. However, as a mutation tool, it could benefit from more details on side effects or error handling, though the output schema may cover return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It clearly explains both parameters: 'dag_id' as the DAG to pause and 'env' with its allowed values ('dev', 'uat', 'test', 'prod') and a critical usage instruction (asking the user if not specified). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('pause') and resource ('a DAG'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'unpause_dag' and 'trigger_dag'. It explains that it prevents future scheduled runs while allowing current runs to complete, which is precise and actionable.

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 on when to use this tool (to pause a DAG and prevent future scheduled runs) and includes an important usage note for the 'env' parameter (asking the user if not specified). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'unpause_dag', which limits the score.

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