pause_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains that pausing stops scheduled actions, which is helpful behavioral context. However, it omits reversibility (can it be resumed?), effects on currently executing actions, or idempotency concerns for this state-changing operation.

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 efficiently structured sentences. The first states the action, the second explains the consequence. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter state change tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials. It could improve by mentioning reversibility via resume_agent, but the current level is acceptable for this complexity tier.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds the constraint that the agent should be 'active,' which provides semantic context beyond the schema's literal 'agent ID to pause.' However, it does not elaborate on the parameter format or validation rules.

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 identifies the verb (Pause), resource (agent), and scope (active), along with the specific effect (stop running scheduled actions). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like resume_agent and create_agent, though it doesn't explicitly reference them.

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 implied usage guidance by explaining the effect (stops scheduled actions), suggesting when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives like resume_agent for the reverse operation.

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