pause_dispatcher

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation confirms this is a mutation, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond it: the operation requires ADMIN privileges and acts as a global kill switch. It does not state reversibility or what happens to in-flight tasks, keeping it from a 5.

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 short sentence with no waste, front-loading the action, its scope, and the privilege requirement. Every element earns its place.

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 zero-parameter mutation with no output schema, the essentials — action, scope, and admin requirement — are covered. Minor gaps remain around reversibility and the effect on running agents/tasks, but they are not critical 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Schema coverage is 100% trivially and nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Pause the dispatcher') plus a scope qualifier ('globally'), making the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the complementary sibling resume_dispatcher, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation, but the verb makes the contrast obvious.

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?

Calling it a 'kill switch' implies emergency/urgent usage and 'globally' implies broad impact, so the when-to-use is implied. However, no alternative is named and no explicit condition for pausing versus resuming is stated.

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