Pay: offers pause

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive and non-read-only. The description adds concrete behavior: codes become unredeemable, past redemptions and rewards are preserved, the operation is reversible, and user confirmation is advised before mutating data.

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?

Five short sentences front-load purpose, effect, reversibility, the preferred alternative, and a safety caution. Each sentence carries distinct, useful information for invoking the tool correctly.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, reversibility, alternatives, and caution. The annotations carry safety hints, so nothing material is missing for correct use.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single required `id` parameter, including guidance to find it with `pay_offers_list`. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 ('Pause an offer') and explains the resulting status change and its effect on codes. It distinguishes the tool from siblings `pay_offers_activate` (reversal) and `pay_offers_delete` (alternative for stopping without history loss).

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?

Explicitly recommends preferring this over `pay_offers_delete` when stopping an offer without losing history, and names `pay_offers_activate` as the reversal tool. This gives the agent both the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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