update_site_pause

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Modifies' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, destructive, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps in safety and operational understanding.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., idempotency, destructiveness), usage context, and information on return values or errors. For a tool that modifies site configurations, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate safely and effectively.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters (siteId and paused), including examples and validation. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the impact of pausing ESA or how to obtain the siteId. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Modifies') and the resource ('ESA proxy configuration of a website'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_site_pause' (read) or 'create_site' (create). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_record' or 'update_ipv6' beyond the resource focus.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a site ID from 'list_sites'), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'get_site_pause' for checking status or other site modification tools. Usage is implied only by the action and resource.

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