pause_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the different behaviors for two stream types (Superfluid requires flow deletion first, micro-transfer skips pending ticks) and mentions backend verification. It could be improved by addressing error conditions or what happens to stream data during pause.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place. The first states the core purpose, the second provides Superfluid-specific instructions, and the third covers micro-transfer behavior. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the different behaviors for two stream types. It could be more complete by mentioning what the tool returns or any side effects. However, given the complexity of handling different stream types, it provides adequate context for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Pause') and resource ('an active stream'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'resume_stream' and 'stop_stream'. It provides domain-specific details about what pausing means for different stream types (Superfluid and micro-transfer), which helps differentiate it from similar operations.

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 for when to use this tool (to pause an active stream) and includes specific prerequisites for Superfluid streams (must delete the flow first). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'stop_stream' for permanent termination versus temporary pausing.

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