Pause project

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses that resources scale to 0 while URL, host, port, password, settings and volumes are retained, and that the response reports both what was paused and what was skipped with reasons. The annotations (non-destructive, idempotent) are reinforced rather than merely restated.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the trigger comes first, followed by the effect and the return summary. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return value ('what was paused and what was skipped, with why'). Combined with the trigger, preservation guarantees, and undo tool, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single 'project' parameter, and the schema already documents that it accepts name, slug, or ID. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+scope: 'stop every service of a Lizard project without deleting anything', with concrete mechanics (each app and database scales to 0). This cleanly distinguishes it from service_pause (single service) and project_delete (removes resources), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 a clear trigger condition ('when the user wants to stop every service of a project') and names the recovery path ('Undo with project_resume'). It does not explicitly state the when-not case (e.g., use service_pause for a single service), leaving one routing inference to the agent.

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