Pause DCA Plan

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond this: the plan stops executing until resumed and the tool returns the upstream API response. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's lifecycle effect and return behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the behavioral consequence, and the relevant sibling for restarting. The most actionable information is front-loaded, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 single-required-parameter command, the description is nearly complete: it states the effect, the identifier, the return behavior, and the restart path. It does not detail response structure in the absence of an output schema, but for this tool's complexity the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the baseline applies. The description only references 'plan_id' without adding meaning beyond the schema, and it does not discuss the optional _jq parameter. The schema already documents both parameters adequately, so the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 states a specific verb ('Pause'), a specific resource ('DCA plan'), and the key identifier ('by plan_id'). It also clarifies the semantic difference from dca_resume by saying the plan stops executing until resumed, which distinguishes it from related lifecycle tools.

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 clearly conveys the context: use this when you want to suspend a plan, and use dca_resume to restart it. It does not explicitly contrast with dca_stop or other sibling alternatives, so it lacks full exclusion guidance, but the core usage context is clear.

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