pause_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the core effect (stops triggering new workflows) and reversibility (can be resumed later), which is helpful. However, it omits details such as whether in-flight workflows are affected, idempotency, or required permissions, leaving notable gaps.

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 well-structured: a concise summary sentence, a useful cross-reference to resume_schedule, and clearly formatted Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 two-parameter tool, the description is largely complete. It covers the action, its effect, the key counterpart tool, parameter meanings, and the return format. It lacks edge-case details (e.g., error conditions, behavior when already paused), but given the tool's simplicity and existing output schema, these omissions are acceptable.

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 input schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It does so by providing meaningful definitions for both parameters: 'Name of the DBOS application' and 'Name of the schedule to pause.' This adds clear value beyond the schema's bare titles, though it could go further with guidance on sourcing these values.

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 and resource ('Pause a schedule') and adds the clarifying effect 'stopping it from triggering new workflows.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like resume_schedule and trigger_schedule, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by noting the schedule 'can be resumed later with resume_schedule,' giving the agent a direct counterpart and implying the appropriate use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives like cancel_workflow, so it stops 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.