snowflake_suspend_taskSuspend an active Snowflake scheduled task to halt its execution without deleting it, specifying the task name and optional database/schema.
Suspend an active scheduled task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | No | ||
| task_name | Yes | ||
| schema_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / database / titleRemoved value: -"Database"Input schema / properties / schema_name / titleRemoved value: -"Schema Name"Input schema / properties / task_name / titleRemoved value: -"Task Name"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_suspend_taskArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_suspend_taskDictOutput"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the useful state constraint that the task must be active, but it does not describe permissions, side effects, or what happens if the task is not active.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple action, though it is terse enough that some might view it as under-specified rather than maximally concise.
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 mutation tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is still missing key context: it does not explain how to identify the task across database/schema, and it gives no usage or prerequisite guidance. The gap is significant because the schema has 0% parameter description coverage.
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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about task identification, default database/schema context, or whether a qualified task name is required.
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 states a specific verb and resource: suspend an active scheduled task. It clearly identifies the action but does not differentiate from siblings like snowflake_resume_task or snowflake_execute_task, which would require description-level guidance.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied context is that the task should be active, but it does not say what to do otherwise or how this differs from resuming or dropping a task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.