pause_account_actions

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

Annotations declare the write-safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so mutability is already covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that the pause is durable and requires an explicit operator resume, but does not disclose required permissions, scope, or whether other actions are blocked. It adds some value beyond annotations without being rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb, scope, and durability condition; it wastes no words and no critical information is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter durable mutation control, the description covers the core effect but omits the resume counterpart by name and the account parameter's expected format, leaving an agent to infer operational details.

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 0%, so the single 'account' parameter is completely undocumented in the schema and the description is silent on it too. The parameter is likely self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap with format or source details.

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 (Pause), resource (browser actions), scope (durably), and clearly reads as a counterpart to the sibling resume_account_actions. The agent can distinguish this from resume_account_actions without opening either schema.

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 explains the pause is durable and persists until the operator explicitly resumes them, which implies context of use. However, it does not explicitly name resume_account_actions as the undo mechanism or state when to pause versus other control tools; the routing is implied by the verb pair rather than spelled out.

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