pause_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the non-destructive nature ('stay on your account but stop firing') and reversibility ('can be reactivated'). It does not mention edge cases like pausing an already paused alert or behavior with empty filters, but the core behavior is well covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no fluff. Every word adds value by defining scope, behavior, and targeting options.

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?

Despite the description explaining the effect, it fails to address a critical ambiguity: since all parameters are optional, calling with no filters could pause all alerts. There is no warning about this, and no mention of return values or error behavior. This is a unsafe gap for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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%, and the schema already explains each parameter, including alert_ids being the 'most precise way'. The description's mention of targeting modes adds little beyond a summary of the schema, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Pause') and resource ('TradingView alerts'), clearly distinct from siblings like delete_alerts and resume_alerts. It also explains the key side effect (alerts stay but stop firing), which removes ambiguity.

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?

It provides two targeting modes ('by alert_ids, or by symbol / name / status filter') and mentions resume_alerts as the reactivation path. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use (e.g., for permanent removal use delete_alerts), so it falls short of a 5.

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