pause_account

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does reasonably well: it flags '[WRITE ACTION]', describes the mutation's effect on trade logging and risk checks, and states that an updated account record is returned. It omits reversibility (that resume_account undoes it) and any permission or side-effect caveats.

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?

Front-loaded with the action tag and core behavior, followed by compact examples. The example questions are somewhat repetitive in purpose but remain short and each reinforces an invocation pattern.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. The missing piece is the relationship to its inverse tool (resume_account) and any permission/reversibility notes.

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%, so both 'account' and 'reason' are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description echoes the account examples but adds no format or matching semantics (name vs ID resolution) beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Pause / deactivate a specific trading account in TradeZylo') and enumerates the concrete effects (stops trade logging and active risk checks). It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings, though it never names its natural inverse, resume_account, which would have sharpened differentiation.

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?

Gives clear usage context with parenthetical scenarios ('taking a break, challenge passed, drawdown caution') and example questions that map directly to invocation. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or how it differs from adjacent tools like freeze_trading or resume_account.

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