paperclip_pause_agent

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

Description explains the effect of pausing (prevents new heartbeat runs, sets status to paused) and returns updated agent object. Annotations already indicate idempotent and openWorldHint false, which are consistent. Could mention that already running heartbeats are unaffected, but overall clear.

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?

Structured with sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling), front-loaded main purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides value.

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 simple mutation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, alternatives, error handling, and return value. Complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides 100% coverage with description 'Agent UUID'. Description adds value with example format 'agt_abc123' and context of use, but schema already describes the parameter adequately.

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 verb 'pause' and resource 'agent', with specific effect 'preventing it from starting new heartbeat runs'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like paperclip_terminate_agent and paperclip_resume_agent.

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?

Provides explicit examples: when to use ('temporarily stopping a runaway or misconfigured agent during incident response') and when not to use (for permanent stop, use paperclip_terminate_agent). Also includes error handling guidance for 401 and 404.

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