pause-dag

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 clearly states the mutation effect (setting paused to true), the prerequisite (--allow-write flag), and the return type (CallToolResult confirming the pause). It does not mention edge cases like existing running runs, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 structured as a docstring with a summary, a note about the flag, an Args list, and a Returns line. While somewhat longer than strictly necessary, every section contributes useful context. The summary and note are front-loaded, and the Args list mirrors schema but is acceptable for documentation completeness.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects for this simple tool: purpose, effect, prerequisite, parameters, and return value. It does not need to elaborate further given the lack of output schema and the simple nature of the operation. Slightly more detail on edge cases (e.g., idempotency) could push it higher, but it is already complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 all parameters (dag_id, region, profile_name, environment_name) already described in the schema. The description's Args section repeats the same information without adding new semantics. Therefore, the baseline of 3 applies; no additional meaning is provided beyond the 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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Pause a DAG.' It explicitly states the effect ('Sets the DAG's paused status to true, preventing new scheduled runs'), which distinguishes it from sibling unpause-dag. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 clearly states a prerequisite: 'Requires the --allow-write flag.' It implies usage context by explaining the effect (preventing scheduled runs). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list includes unpause-dag, and the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool versus others.

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