Pause Hermes scheduled job

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false (a mutation), leaving the description to carry behavioral disclosure. It adds that the job is 'not deleted' and mentions 'writing redacted receipts,' which is useful behavioral context about side effects. However, it doesn't address idempotency concerns (pausing an already-paused job), return semantics, or whether the write requires specific permissions.

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?

A single compact sentence conveys the purpose, the HTTP wrapper nature, the behavior (suspend + not delete), and a side effect (redacted receipts). Efficient and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Minor deduction for cramming the 'redacted receipts' detail without context on why that matters.

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?

The tool is a straightforward pause operation with one well-documented parameter and an output schema present. The description covers the essential semantics. However, with no annotations for possible side-effect or idempotency warning, and given sibling tools for resume/delete/cancel exist, a bit more guidance on relationship to those tools would improve completeness.

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% — the single parameter job_id is documented as 'Unique job identifier.' The description adds the detail that the endpoint is POST /api/jobs/{job_id}/pause, which clarifies job_id lives in the URL path. But there's no additional format or semantics beyond the schema baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states it's a 'Typed POST /api/jobs/{job_id}/pause wrapper' that 'suspends a scheduled Hermes cron job without deleting it,' giving a specific verb+resource+action. It distinguishes from resuming/deleting jobs present in the sibling set. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool like the high-scoring example does.

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 contextual clues about what the tool does (pause vs delete) which implies usage for suspending rather than removing jobs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs hermes_api_jobs_resume, hermes_api_jobs_delete, or hermes_job_cancel, leaving the agent to infer from naming alone.

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